R A N D - I N I T I AT E D RESEARCH
CHILD POLICY
This PDF document was made available
CIVIL JUSTICE
from www.rand.org as a public service of
EDUCATION
the RAND Corporation.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
Jump down to document6
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit
research organization providing
objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors
around the world.
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND-Initiated Research
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law
as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic
representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or
reuse in another form, any of our research documents.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
The Future of
Genetically
Modified Crops
Lessons from the Green Revolution
F ELICIA W U
W ILLIAM P . B UTZ
This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using
discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND’s donors
and the fees earned on client-funded research.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wu, Felicia.
The future of genetically modified crops : lessons from the Green Revolution /
Felicia Wu and William Butz.
p. cm.
“MG-161.”
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8330-3646-7 (pbk.)
1. Transgenic plants. 2. Crops—Genetic engineering. 3. Green revolution.
I. Butz, William P. II. Title.
SB123.57.W8 2004
631.5'233—dc22
2004014614
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing
objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s
publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients
and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
Cover design by Peter Soriano
© Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any
form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying,
recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in
writing from RAND.
Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected]
Preface
The number of people in danger of malnutrition worldwide has decreased significantly in the past 30 years, thanks in part to the Green
Revolution of the 20th century. However, an estimated 800 million
people still lack adequate access to food. The world now sits at the
cusp of a second potential agricultural revolution, the “Gene Revolution” in which modern biotechnology enables the production of genetically modified (GM) crops that may be tailored to address ongoing agricultural problems in specific regions of the world. The GM
crop movement has the potential to do enormous good, but also presents novel risks and has significant challenges to overcome before it
can truly be considered revolutionary. This monograph seeks to answer these questions: Can the Gene Revolution become in fact a
global revolution, and, if so, how should it best proceed?
This report draws on lessons from the Green Revolution to inform stakeholders who are concerned with the current GM crop
movement. We hope that this analysis can illuminate opportunities
for GM crops to increase farm production, rural income, and food
security in developing countries, while controlling potential risks to
health and the environment. The analysis and findings in this report
are intended for all individuals and institutions interested in improving agricultural production and food quality in the developing world,
and particularly those who have a stake in the worldwide debate over
genetically modified crops.
This report results from the RAND Corporation’s continuing
program of self-sponsored independent research. Support for such
iii
iv
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
research is provided, in part, by donors and by the independent research and development provisions of RAND’s contracts for the operation of its U.S. Department of Defense federally funded research
and development centers.
Questions about this report should be directed to Felicia Wu at
the University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health,
A718 Crabtree Hall, 130 DeSoto St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261 (fwu@
eoh.pitt.edu).
The RAND Corporation Quality Assurance Process
Peer review is an integral part of all RAND research projects. Prior to
publication, this document, as with all documents in the RAND
monograph series, was subject to a quality assurance process to ensure
that the research meets several standards, including the following:
The problem is well formulated; the research approach is well designed and well executed; the data and assumptions are sound; the
findings are useful and advance knowledge; the implications and recommendations follow logically from the findings and are explained
thoroughly; the documentation is accurate, understandable, cogent,
and temperate in tone; the research demonstrates understanding of
related previous studies; and the research is relevant, objective, independent, and balanced. Peer review is conducted by research professionals who were not members of the project team.
RAND routinely reviews and refines its quality assurance process and also conducts periodic external and internal reviews of the
quality of its body of work. For additional details regarding the
RAND quality assurance process, visit http://www.rand.org/
standards/.
v
Contents
Preface ...................................................................... iii
Figures ...................................................................... xi
Tables ...................................................................... xiii
Summary....................................................................xv
Acknowledgments .........................................................xxv
Acronyms ................................................................ xxvii
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction .................................................................1
The Agricultural Revolutions of the 19th and 20th Centuries ..............2
The "Gene Revolution" ......................................................4
The Gene Revolution in Light of the Earlier Green Revolution ............5
Science and Technology ..................................................6
Funding and Sources of Financial Investment............................6
Where the Revolution Takes Place .......................................7
Policies and Politics .......................................................8
Organization of This Report.................................................8
CHAPTER TWO
The Green Revolution .................................................... 11
Science and Technology ................................................... 12
Plant Breeding Methodologies .......................................... 13
Combined Technologies ................................................ 14
Training of Local Scientists ............................................. 15
Funding .................................................................... 15
vii
viii
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Where the Green Revolution Occurred ................................... 18
Latin America ........................................................... 18
Asia...................................................................... 19
The United Kingdom ................................................... 22
A Failure in Africa?...................................................... 23
Policies and Politics ........................................................ 26
Domestic Interests ...................................................... 26
International Interests................................................... 28
Where the Green Revolution Fell Short: Remaining Challenges .......... 30
Agricultural Challenges ................................................. 30
Human Health Challenges ............................................. 32
Socioeconomic Challenges .............................................. 33
Environmental Challenges .............................................. 35
Lessons from the Green Revolution ....................................... 36
Successes of the Green Revolution...................................... 36
Issues Left Unresolved by the Green Revolution ....................... 37
CHAPTER THREE
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops...................... 39
Science and Technology ................................................... 40
Agricultural Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops ................... 41
Potential Health Benefits of GM Crops ................................ 42
Potential Risks of GM Crops ........................................... 44
Funding .................................................................... 45
Where the Gene Revolution Is Occurring ................................. 49
Policies and Politics ........................................................ 53
United States ............................................................ 54
European Union ........................................................ 57
The U.S. and EU Dispute over GMOs and Its Implications for the
Gene Revolution in the Developing World ......................... 59
Other Crucial Differences in the Political Worlds of the Green and
Gene Revolutions .................................................... 62
Contents
ix
CHAPTER FOUR
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution ........... 65
Agricultural Biotechnology Is Just One of Several Options for the
Future ................................................................ 66
Broadening the Impact of the GM Crop Movement: Applying Lessons
from the Green Revolution .......................................... 68
Implications for Relevant Stakeholders .................................... 74
Bibliography ............................................................... 77
Figures
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
3.1.
Total Production of Maize and Wheat in Latin America and
the Caribbean, 1961 to 1991 ..................................... 19
Total Rice Production in East and Southeast Asia, 1961
to 1991 ............................................................ 21
Total Wheat and Rice Production in South Asia, 1961 to
1991............................................................... 22
Annual Growth Rates in Yield for Rice, Wheat, and Maize in
China, 1966 to 1995.............................................. 31
Area Devoted to Genetically Modified Crops, 1996 to 2003 .... 51
xi
Tables
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
Changes in Production Inputs in India, Pakistan, and China
Due to the Green Revolution ..................................... 14
Change in Percentage of the Chronically Malnourished
Population in Developing Countries, 1970 to 1990 ............. 25
Publicly Funded Agricultural Research, by Country, Crop, and
Year Research Began .............................................. 25
Current and Potential Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops .. 44
Regulatory Scheme for Coordinating Reviews of GM Crops .... 55
Impact of Bt Corn on U.S. Stakeholders ......................... 63
xiii
Summary
The world now sits at the cusp of a new agricultural revolution—the
“Gene Revolution” in which modern biotechnology enables the production of genetically modified (GM) crops that may be tailored to
address agricultural problems worldwide. This report investigates the
circumstances and processes that can induce and sustain such an agricultural revolution. It does so by comparing the current GM crop
movement with the Green Revolution of the latter half of the 20th
century. We assess not only the scientific and technological differences in crops and in agricultural methods between these two movements, but more generally the economic, cultural, and political factors that influence whether a new agricultural technology is adopted
and accepted by farmers, consumers, and governments. Our historical
analysis of the earlier Green Revolution provides lessons about
whether and how genetically modified crops might spread around the
world. Whether the latter movement will develop into a global Gene
Revolution remains to be seen.
Genetically modified crops created by modern agricultural biotechnology have attracted worldwide attention in the past decade.
Cautious voices warn that the health and environmental effects of
GM crops are uncertain and that their cultivation could have unintended adverse consequences. Alternatively, supporters of the technology assert that GM crops could revolutionize world agriculture,
particularly in developing countries, in ways that would substantially
reduce malnutrition, improve food security, and increase rural income, and in some cases even reduce environmental pollutants.
xv
xvi
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Can the GM crop movement develop into an agricultural revolution on the scale of the Green Revolution? To answer this question,
first, it is important to consider what an agricultural revolution entails. Viewed historically, movements that come to be considered agricultural revolutions share the following features:
1. The movements gave farmers incentives to produce—i.e., the
technologies provided a net benefit to farmers.
2. The movements substantially improved agricultural production,
food nutrition, or both; or they substantially decreased necessary
inputs such as fertilizer or water.
3. People were generally willing to adapt culturally and economically
to the new technologies, and consumers accepted the products of
the agricultural movement.
4. There was cooperation among those that provided the technologies, regulated the technologies, and used the technologies.
5. The movements were sustainable, eventually without public subsidization.
On a regional scale, GM crops might indeed be considered
revolutionary—that is, they could meet all five criteria for an agricultural revolution. In the United States, Canada, China, and Argentina,
for example, genetically modified varieties of soybeans, corn, and cotton now make up from about a third to 80 percent of total plantings
of those crops, and provide benefits for growers such that these GM
varieties will likely continue to make up a substantial portion of total
plantings in the foreseeable future. Likewise, policymakers and the
general public in these nations are accepting of this new technology.
Adoption of these GM crops has led to improved yield, decreased use
of pesticides or particularly harmful herbicides, and, in some cases,
improved food quality.
While farmers in other nations, such as India and South Africa,
have more recently begun to plant GM crops and experience the beginnings of a potential Gene Revolution, the revolution has yet to
occur on a global scale. It has stalled because consumer and environ-
Summary
xvii
mental concerns, along with precautionary regulations, have limited
its spreading to the countries that could benefit from it most, notably
much of sub-Saharan Africa where famine continually threatens the
population.
As stated above, the purpose of this report is to better understand whether and how this GM movement might become an
authentic agricultural revolution by comparing it with an earlier agricultural movement that did reach nearly the entire world. The Green
Revolution that had its origins in the 1940s, and reached its peak in
the 1970s, continues to affect agricultural practices today. By analyzing the Green Revolution’s objectives, science and technology,
sources of financing, regulatory environment, and ultimate successes
and failures, we offer an assessment of the ongoing GM crop movement—whether and how it might make a revolutionary impact on
world agriculture.
The stated objective of the Green Revolution was to increase
food production in regions of the world facing impending massive
malnutrition. In the post-World War II era, scientists and policymakers considered those regions to be Latin America and Asia. Some
argue, in retrospect, that this geographic choice was also motivated by
Cold War politics: a largely U.S.-supported effort to prevent the
spread of communism by ensuring adequate food supplies in at-risk
countries.
Regardless of its motivation, the introduction of high-yield varieties (HYVs) of crop seed, along with pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation systems, transformed agriculture on those two continents.
With initial funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, individuals
including U.S. plant breeders, agronomists, entomologists, soil scientists, and engineers worked in developing nations while training local
agricultural scientists to extend the work in their own locales. The
World Bank, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), and other national and international organizations later
joined the Rockefeller Foundation to make this effort succeed. And
succeed it did, in terms of increasing food production in Asia, Latin
America, and even parts of the industrialized world such as Great
xviii
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Britain. In Africa, however, where the movement came later, the
Green Revolution has yet to improve food production in a sustainable way. As such, this movement provides several important lessons
for understanding the possible course of the Gene Revolution.
We compare the Green Revolution and the current GM crop
movement in four basic areas: science and technology, funding
sources, where the movement occurred or is occurring, and the policies and political motivations surrounding each movement.
Science and Technology
The Green Revolution presented a considerable advance in agricultural technologies for farmers in the developing world, and, to a limited extent, in industrialized countries as well. For the first time, scientists and plant breeders integrated their research with farming
practices in traditional agriculture to tackle problems that were constraining crop yield. High-yield seeds for rice, wheat, and corn were
introduced in parts of the world where these crops made up a significant portion of the daily diet, and subsequently of food exports. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and irrigation systems were also introduced to aid farmers in controlling previously unmanageable pests,
dealing with low-quality soil, and delivering water to crops according
to their requirements.
The Gene Revolution, propelled by genetic engineering, allows
previously unheard-of combinations of traits across species to achieve
pre-specified objectives. For example, daffodil and bacterial genes can
be introduced into the rice genome so that the rice produces betacarotene, the precursor of vitamin A. The benefits of the current varieties of GM crops include yield increase, reduced agricultural inputs
such as pesticides and fertilizers, reduced vulnerability to the whims
of nature, and improved nutritional content. For the most part, these
benefits have been limited to parts of the industrialized world to
which current GM crop development and marketing have been targeted and, among those, to countries that have allowed their cultivation. Other GM crops are now being developed that survive on less
Summary
xix
water, that survive in soil heavy in salt or metals such as aluminum,
that convert or “fix” nitrogen from the air, and that produce vaccines
against common diseases such as cholera and hepatitis B (Byrne et al.,
2004).
A fundamental challenge in this newest agricultural movement
that did not arise during the Green Revolution is the definition and
treatment of intellectual property (IP). IP issues are central to the
Gene Revolution because whereas science and technology move forward through the sharing of ideas and resources, IP ambiguities and
restrictions can often limit the valuable diffusion of science and technology. Commercial application of biotechnology has taken place
primarily in the United States and primarily through the private sector. The issue of who “owns” a particular event (the successful transformation) of a genetically modified crop and who can develop it further has become so economically important and contentious that
numerous cases involving this issue are being litigated (Woodward,
2003). Some observers consider IP issues to be among the most important impediments to the development and adoption of GM crops
in the developing world (Shoemaker et al., 2001; Cayford, 2004).
Patent rights that universities may have on their sponsored research,
corporate profit interests, and the ability of farmers to buy IPprotected seed are salient IP issues.
Funding
Philanthropic organizations, i.e., the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, provided the backbone of early funding for the Green Revolution (Perkins, 1997; Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). The scientists who created high-yield seeds and their associated pesticides
and fertilizers worked in conjunction with, and were funded by, these
foundations along with the governments of Mexico, India, and several other countries. In 1971, while the Green Revolution was bearing its first fruits in many parts of the world, the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)—a system of 16 Future Harvest Centers working in more than 100 countries—was cre-
xx
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
ated. With the creation of CGIAR, support for developing world agriculture became more broad-based and included European nations,
Canada, and Japan.
Genetically modified crops are largely the product of private industry. This is partly because new technologies are far more costly
than existing ones, and the biotechnology industry was able to gather
the necessary funds to develop these technologies long before public
awareness of GM crops could lead to publicly generated funding for
GM crop development (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). Successful companies typically focus on their markets with the intent of
generating profit. With regard to agricultural biotechnology, companies in the United States and elsewhere have thus far created primarily seeds that farmers in industrialized countries can and will purchase: corn and soybeans that can tolerate a particular herbicide, corn
and cotton that are resistant to particular pests, and food crops that
last longer on the supermarket shelf. Because of the “technology fee”
that growers pay to use these crop seeds (including recoupment of
industry’s research and development costs as well as profit), and because the seeds are designed particularly for their planting situations,
the targeted farmers in industrial countries have generally found it
worthwhile to buy these seeds and have been willing to pay the technology fee (Wu, 2004). Thus, in industrialized nations, GM crop
technology has had the potential to revolutionize farming. However,
the current GM crop seed varieties are neither affordable nor useful
to most of the poorer farmers in the world; hence, their revolutionary
impact in the developing world has been limited thus far. Indeed,
there seems to be a mismatch of setting and technology, due to the
funding sources of basic research.
Some agricultural biotechnology companies have recently expressed interest in working with regional research institutions to develop crops that would be profitable and affordable for farmers in developing countries. In addition, they are willing to donate a
substantial portion of their scientific knowledge, such as genomes of
key food crops, to increase agricultural knowledge in the developing
world. In this way, the challenges related to IP may be lessened.
Summary
xxi
Where the Revolution Was and Is Taking Place
The Green Revolution was a success, in terms of its stated objectives,
in Mexico and the rest of Latin America, India, and much of Southeast Asia. On the other hand, the Green Revolution has had little significant impact in most areas of Africa. Two prominent hypotheses
for this outcome are that the technology package that was so useful in
some parts of the world was not applicable to African farms, and that
rural transportation systems are ill-designed to deliver either the technologies or their resulting products.
The technologies introduced in Asia and Latin America in the
Green Revolution generally required not more land, but chemical
fertilizer and well-timed water. Farmers who could access these inputs
did well while others did not. To the extent that large landholders
also had access to fertilizer and irrigation, they tended to adopt the
new technologies early and successfully.
It may be too early to predict the varying adoption rates and
benefits of yet undeveloped Gene Revolution technologies given the
differing characteristics of farmers and regions. What can be said
from the Green Revolution experience is that farmers will not adopt
and utilize technologies over the long term that do not cost considerably less than current technologies, produce considerably more than
current technologies, or substantially reduce the variability of cost or
production in their own locales. As opposed to the Green Revolution,
the key component of the Gene Revolution technology is improved
seed. This being the case, all farmers, small or large, should be able to
take advantage of the Gene Revolution; theoretically, the Gene
Revolution is scale-neutral, providing that one can pay for the seed.
However, cultural factors may deter farmers from embracing the new
science; genetically modified crops have already become a stigmatized
technology in some parts of the world because of concerns about manipulating organisms in seemingly “unnatural” ways and fears of unintended adverse impacts on the environment or human health.
xxii
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Policies and Politics
At the time the Green Revolution was first seriously considered, the
United States and the rest of the developed world feared that food
crises in developing countries would cause political instability that
could push those countries over to the Communist side (Perkins,
1997). Partly as a result of this issue, the U.S. government was highly
concerned about agricultural science in the developing world and
worked with foundations and scientists in the post-World War II
decades to bring about the Green Revolution in regions subject to
famine.
As of yet, there does not appear to be a strong political motivation for genetically modified crops to succeed in the developing
world. Communism is no longer a threat, and famines, while still a
problem in parts of the world, appear to be more the result of localized weather, politics, and war conditions than a sweeping threat that
commands sustained government and public attention in industrial
countries. Instead, public concerns and national and international
regulations are now the driving force behind whether GM crops are
adopted or rejected in various parts of the world, because wider public scrutiny and the newness of the science have led to concerns about
environmental and health risks of GM crops that must be dealt with
at the policy level.
The battle between U.S. and European Union regulations,
which feature very different stances on the acceptance of GM crops in
food and feed, has been the major determinant of this outcome. In
addition, a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that
are concerned about the influence of multinational corporations, environmental degradation, crop diversification, food safety, globalization, and the influence of U.S. interests are prominent and influential
in both the industrialized and developing countries. These NGOs
were not nearly as influential during the Green Revolution.
Summary
xxiii
Lessons from the Green Revolution
What can we determine about the prospects for the Gene Revolution
by studying the Green Revolution’s successes and failures? The Gene
Revolution thus far resembles the Green Revolution in the following
ways: (1) It employs new science and technology to create crop seeds
that can significantly outperform the types of seeds that preceded it;
(2) the impact of the new seed technologies can be critically important to developing world agriculture; and (3) for a variety of reasons,
these technologies have not yet reached the parts of the world where
they could be most beneficial. On the other hand, the Gene Revolution is unlike the Green Revolution in the following ways: (1) The
science and technology required to create GM crop seeds are far more
complicated than the science and technology used to create Green
Revolution agricultural advancements; (2) GM seeds are created
largely through private enterprises rather than through public-sector
efforts; and (3) the political climate in which agricultural science can
influence the world by introducing innovations has changed dramatically since the Green Revolution.
The similarities and differences between the Green and Gene
Revolutions lead us to speculate that for the GM crop movement to
have the sort of impact that would constitute an agricultural revolution, the following goals still need to be met and the related challenges overcome.
1. Agricultural biotechnology must be tailored toward, and
made affordable to, developing-world farmers. Unless these conditions are met, farmers may not see that it is in their best interest to
use GM crops at all despite the unique benefits those crops could
provide.
2. There is a need for larger investments in research in the
public sector. Numerous studies have shown the importance of
public-sector research and development to aiding agricultural advancements, including the Green Revolution. Partnerships between
the public and private sectors can result in more efficient production
of GM crops that are useful to the developing world and can expand
xxiv
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
the accessibility of those crops and their associated technologies to
developing-world farmers.
3. To garner the level of public interest that can sustain an agricultural revolution, agricultural development must once again be
regarded as being critically important from a policy perspective in
both donor and recipient nations. As population numbers continue
to increase today, agricultural development is more necessary than
ever to eliminate malnutrition and prevent famine, particularly in
sub-Saharan Africa. GM crops are seen by many as a means for addressing those problems. However, policymakers worldwide are far
from being a combined force on this issue.
4. Policymakers in the developing world must set regulatory
standards that take into consideration the risks as well as the benefits of foods derived from GM crops. This goal is crucial to the cooperation of the many stakeholders that are affected by GM crops
and also for the sustainability of the GM crop movement in the foreseeable future. Without regulations that explicitly take into account
potential benefits to both farmers and consumers, those nations that
might stand to benefit most from GM crops may be discouraged
from allowing them to be planted.
Revised regulations on genetically modified crops must accompany widespread collective policy efforts to revitalize agricultural development. And before developing world farmers and consumers can
benefit from GM crops or any other type of enhanced crop breeding,
the technologies must be affordable and farmers must understand
how to use them.
The GM crop movement must overcome an intertwined collection of challenges before it can have an impact beyond those regions
of the world that already produce excesses of food. If the GM crop
movement can overcome these challenges, while proving itself to be
acceptably free of adverse health and environmental impacts, it has
the potential to provide benefits to farmers and consumers around
the globe in previously inconceivable ways, while mitigating the need
to use potentially harmful chemicals or scarce water supplies for agriculture. It can then indeed become a true “Gene Revolution.”
Acknowledgments
The generous support of RAND and particularly the encouragement
of Brent Bradley, James Thomson, Stephen Rattien, and Debra
Knopman have made this report possible.
In preparing this report, the authors have benefited from numerous discussions with colleagues within RAND and with representatives from government, academia, industry, and a variety of other
institutions. In particular, we thank:
• Susan Bohandy, Research Communicator, RAND
• Elizabeth Casman, Research Engineer, Carnegie Mellon
University
• Nancy DelFavero, Research Editor, RAND
• Anita Duncan, Administrative Assistant, RAND
• R. Scott Farrow, Chief Economist, U.S. General Accounting
Office
• Daniel A. Goldstein, Product Coordinator, Monsanto Company
• Lowell S. Hardin, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural
Economics, Purdue University
• Robert Klitgaard, Dean, RAND Graduate School, and Professor
of International Development and Security
• J. David Miller, Professor of Biochemistry, Carleton University,
Ottawa, and Visiting Scientist, Health Canada
• Benoit Morel, Senior Lecturer, Carnegie Mellon University
• M. Granger Morgan, Department Head, Engineering and
Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
xxv
xxvi
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
• Robert L. Paarlberg, Professor of Political Science, Wellesley
College
• Tina Rapacchietta, Administrative Assistant, RAND
• Anny Wong, Associate Political Scientist, RAND
• Christopher Wozniak, National Program Leader for Food
Biotechnology and Microbiology, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Any errors of fact or judgment are those of the authors.
Acronyms
AATF
African Agricultural Technology Foundation
APHIS
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Bt
Bacillus thuringiensis
CGIAR
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research
CIAT
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
(International Center for Tropical Agriculture)
CIMMYT
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y
Trigo (International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center)
DG
Directorate General
EC
European Commission
EEC
European Economic Community
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERS
Economic Research Service
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations
FAOSTAT
FAO statistics
FDA
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
xxvii
xxviii
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
FFDCA
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FPPA
Federal Plant Pest Act
FPQA
Federal Plant Quarantine Act
GM
genetically modified
GMO
genetically modified organism
GRAS
Generally Recognized As Safe
Ha
hectare
HYV
high-yield variety
IARC
international agricultural research center
IITA
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IP
intellectual property
IRRI
International Rice Research Institute
ISAAA
International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications
Kg
kilogram
MAP
Mexican Agricultural Program
NARS
national agricultural research systems
NAS
National Academy of Sciences
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
nongovernmental organization
OSS
Office of Special Studies
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
PPA
Plant Protection Act
R&D
research and development
UK
United Kingdom
Acronyms
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID
United States Agency for International
Development
U.S.C.
U.S. Code
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
WTO
World Trade Organization
xxix
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Agriculture is a very old form of human technology. By harnessing
sunlight, soil nutrients, and water toward satisfying their wants and
needs, human beings for much of their history have made more productive use of agriculture than they ever could have derived from
hunting and gathering. Over the millennia, the interaction of agriculture with population growth and dispersion has been at the core of
human cultural and economic progress.1
For as long as ten thousand years, humans have been purposefully choosing the genetic makeup of the crops they grow. Genetic
selection for features such as faster growth, larger seeds, or sweeter
fruits has dramatically changed domesticated plant species compared
with their wild relatives. Indeed, many of our modern crops were developed before modern scientific understanding of plant breeding
(Byrne et al., 2004).
Despite such agricultural improvements, concerns have arisen
many times and in numerous places that the population would grow
faster than the food available to feed it. Periodic famines supported
these fears. In the late 1700s, English economist Thomas Malthus
(1766–1834) predicted that population growth, left unchecked,
____________
1
Anthropologists, economists, geographers, and others have long speculated about the relationship between agricultural development and population growth. British economist David
Ricardo (1772–1823), for example, theorized that technical improvements in agriculture
enabled population growth, whereas Danish economist Esther Boserup argued, alternatively,
that population pressure on the land was a precondition for the emergence and development
of agriculture (Boserup, 1965).
1
2
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
would lead to famine in human civilizations as a matter of course because the food supply, which is limited by the availability and quality
of land, will grow more slowly than the population. Malthusian predictions have not come to pass, partly because of the emergence of
improved agricultural technologies, improvements that were scattered
and infrequently used before Malthus’s time. Indeed, a cultivator
from ancient Egypt might well have stepped into a hired hand’s role
on an American farm as late as the 1880s with only several hours of
instruction. Human labor, animal power, and simple implements
were still, along with the land, the means of food production.
The Agricultural Revolutions of the 19th and
20th Centuries
In the late 19th to early 20th century, a series of unprecedented technological revolutions transformed agriculture, first in industrialized
countries and then more broadly worldwide, although not universally. The grain reaper and cotton gin, and later the tractor and
thresher, pushed the mechanical revolution of the 1890s forward, increasing the amount of seed that could be planted and the amount of
land that could be usefully farmed with the same amount of labor.
Then, shortly after the turn of the 19th century, the Haber-Bosch
process made possible the economical production of nitrogen fertilizer, whose spreading application in the United States and Western
Europe introduced a chemical revolution that further increased the
yield a farmer could produce with the same amount of seed and land.
The first half of the 20th century brought a third set of sweeping
changes. Hybrid crop breeding, first done with corn in the United
States, created new strains that with increased application of chemical
fertilizers substantially boosted production per acre. This hybrid
revolution eventually extended to many other crops and many other
countries.
These three agricultural revolutions arose from technological innovations in industrialized countries and primarily affected the farmers and consumers in those countries. The second half of the 20th
Introduction
3
century produced a different kind of agricultural transformation, one
concentrated in less-developed countries with traditional agriculture.
This so-called Green Revolution (discussed further in Chapter Two)
brought the rapid spread of hybrid wheat and rice, then other hybrid
crops, first in Mexico and then in various Asian nations. Production
per hectare dramatically increased when the crop was appropriately
fertilized and irrigated.
Although they varied substantially in form and scope, these four
19th and 20th century agricultural revolutions shared the following
five characteristics:
1. The movements gave farmers incentives to produce; i.e., the technologies provided a net benefit to farmers.
2. The movements substantially improved agricultural production,
food nutrition, or both; and/or they substantially decreased necessary resources such as human labor, fertilizer, or water.
3. Farmers were generally willing to adapt culturally and economically to the new technologies, and consumers accepted the products of the new technologies.
4. There was cooperation among those that provided the technologies, regulated the technologies, and used the technologies, and
there was support at the governmental level.
5. The movements were sustainable, eventually without public subsidization, and were not just acceptable but were desirable to most
stakeholders (i.e., growers, consumers, and the government).
All of these revolutions have by now run a long-enough course
to reveal their consequences, both planned and unintentional, and
beneficial and harmful. Among the benefits have been substantial increases in food security 2 and rural living standards in much of the
world, and the production of agricultural resources used in producing
non-agricultural goods and services that are an integral part of mod____________
2 Food
security refers to both having enough food on the whole and making sure that distribution systems are in place such that the food actually gets to the people who need it.
4
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
ern life. But in the process of revolutionizing agriculture, the lives of
many millions of people who left the farms for other employment
were disrupted, and the advancements were not always to their advantage.
The “Gene Revolution”
It is in the context of the hundred-year history of technological
change that we consider the most recent movement in world agriculture: genetically modified (GM) crops, produced through modern
biotechnology that enables genes to be transferred across different
species and even across different plant kingdoms, to introduce desired
traits into a host plant.3 After just a decade, the GM crop movement
is already beginning to revolutionize agriculture in new ways, with
previously unachievable benefits and novel potential risks.
This study focuses on the genetically modified crop movement
and whether it has the potential to revolutionize agriculture in the
developing world and to truly become the “Gene Revolution” that
some of its proponents already call it. We focus on the developing
world because it is in greatest need of a new agricultural revolution—whether in the form of GM crops or another revolution altogether—given the rapidly growing populations, lagging agricultural
technologies, and malnutrition in the world’s poorest nations.
Three presumptions motivated this study: (1) Reducing hunger
and malnutrition is desirable; (2) now, as in the past, revolutionary
technological change in world agriculture can substantially reduce
hunger and malnutrition; and (3) now, as in the past, agricultural
technologies can be designed and used such that the majority of
farmers, consumers, and experts will agree that the technologies are
worth their attendant risks.
After a running start in the United States, the progress of the
GM crop movement has slowed, and perhaps even stalled, on the
____________
3
GM crops contain genes that are artificially inserted instead of the plants’ acquiring them
through sexual means. See Chapter Three for a further discussion.
Introduction
5
global stage. As just one example, China, the world’s first commercial
producer of GM crops, has become far more precautionary regarding
GM food trade and production. Why is this happening in many
places around the world? The major reasons seem clear enough:
Many consumers do not want to consume genetically modified agricultural products, some farmers do not want to grow GM crops, influential interest groups advocate against GM crop production and
trade, and a number of governments are also against GM crop production. Concerns over ecological and health risks, and the attendant
economic risks, explain many of these attitudes. Yet, the same concerns arose in varying degrees about the previous agricultural revolutions, particularly the Green Revolution of a generation ago. It is that
particular experience—the Green Revolution—we examine in this
study for answers to whether and how the GM crop movement may
revolutionize world agriculture.
The Gene Revolution in Light of the Earlier Green
Revolution
We believe that the Green Revolution is similar enough to the GM
crop movement in terms of purpose, scope, and influencing factors to
provide important insights into the future of GM technology. For
example, the Green Revolution achieved previously unattainable increases in food production, with important implications for parts of
the developing world where food supply was short. The GM crop
movement has comparable potential. Green Revolution scientists genetically enhanced existing crops in novel ways that created controversy at their inception, as are the methods of the scientists spearheading the GM crop movement today. The Green Revolution
required financial and political support from a variety of stakeholders
and decisionmakers, just as the GM crop movement does today.
For this study, we conducted a systematic investigation of the
Green Revolution, identifying factors associated with its successes and
failures. From this investigation, we identified lessons that can be applied to the current Gene Revolution to provide guidelines on how
6
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
policymakers, industry leaders, and other key decisionmakers can
minimize the risks and maximize the benefits from this agricultural
revolution. In short, we explore the question: What can be learned
about whether and how the Gene Revolution can succeed on a global
scale by studying the successes and failures of the Green Revolution?
Our analysis of the GM crop movement’s Gene Revolution and
its Green Revolution predecessor is structured around four main areas
of comparison:
•
•
•
•
The science and technology of each movement
Their sources of funding and financial investment
Where each agricultural movement took place
The political environment surrounding these movements.
Science and Technology
Long before scientists and engineers turned their research tools to agriculture, farmers worldwide had already developed and adapted
yield-maximizing techniques, such as fighting weeds, spreading manure, rotating crops, leaving land fallow for a period of time, and setting aside seeds from the sturdiest plants to sow the following season
(Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). It was advances in science
and technology, however, which allowed for the recent agricultural
revolutions to occur. Mechanical, chemical, plant breeding, and now
genetic sciences have enabled agricultural transformations that have
greatly increased yield and reduced labor requirements.
Funding and Sources of Financial Investment
The type of financial support for agricultural research and development has a major impact on how new technologies are created and
disseminated. The source of research and development funding matters greatly because it influences public attitudes, governmental willingness to adopt new technologies, and the types of technologies that
are developed (which may be useful or useless in certain parts of the
world, depending on the technology).
Introduction
7
Some key questions in this area are: Who is providing the
funding for the new science and technology? Is the capital investment
for profit or for philanthropy? How are the funding institutions organized—do they work together or separately to achieve their aims?
How can the industrial and developing world organize for the purpose of funding agricultural technologies? The answers to these questions will determine whether the Gene Revolution will have the sustained financial and political support needed to transfer the
technology worldwide.
Where the Revolution Takes Place
Many factors influence where an agricultural revolution takes place.
First, the scientific and technological developments may have limited
geographic applicability. For example, a pesticide that provides protection against a specific pest is useful only in areas where that pest
does significant damage. Likewise, soybeans that are genetically modified to tolerate a specific herbicide are useful only where soybeans are
planted and where the particular herbicide is commonly used. Indeed, because crops are planted in such a wide variety of agronomic
conditions, producers usually are unable to develop agricultural technologies that are beneficial on a global basis. Aside from scientific
considerations, the agricultural, trade, and consumer policies that
weaken farmers’ production incentives can make even the most usable
technology unprofitable and therefore unusable. Low farming income, the high cost of complementary inputs (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation), and badly defined land property rights can also
prevent adoption of new technologies.
Whether the people of a particular region are willing to accept a
new technology and adapt their lifestyles accordingly is a significant
factor in whether the technology makes any headway. Certain local
farming practices have become tradition for good reason and are not
easily altered. In some cases, those practices shape a community’s
value system. Advancing agricultural technologies can, for example,
disrupt daily and seasonal routines of work and leisure, particularly
the division of work among men, women, and children in a house-
8
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
hold. Also, some stakeholder groups will benefit and others will suffer
from widespread technological change.
Land ownership issues are crucial in this area. For example, the
mechanical revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries replaced human labor in the fields with machines, first in the industrial world
and then in the developing world. Only those farmers who could afford the machines and who had access to enough land to make using
the machines worthwhile were able to thrive; smaller farmers and
those who were unwilling to adjust to technological change often sold
or lost their land. That trend may hold for future agricultural movements as well.
Policies and Politics
Food supply and food security have always figured prominently in the
strength and stability of a nation-state (Perkins, 1997). Internal stability in peacetime is heavily dependent on a safe and steady food
supply, and the advent of war brings the continued dependability of
the food supply into sharp focus. Policies and regulations can help to
either mobilize an agricultural revolution or stymie it.
The interrelationship of the many different governing bodies is
even more important today than it was a generation ago; food regulations in Europe, for example, did not influence whether Mexico or
China adopted Green Revolution technologies. Today, with the conflicts among various governing bodies regarding the safety or desirability of particular agricultural technologies (such as GM crops) and
their food products, adoption of those technologies may slow worldwide or stop completely. When there is harmony among policymakers about the desirability of promoting an agricultural movement,
that movement stands a stronger chance of making a revolutionary
impact.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Chapter Two describes the Green Revolution along the lines of the
topics discussed above: science and technology, funding, where the
Introduction
9
revolution took place, and policies and politics surrounding the
revolution. Chapter Three describes the ongoing Gene Revolution
along the same lines, with the understanding that this revolution is
ongoing and thus still evolving. Chapter Four applies the lessons
from Chapter Two to the Gene Revolution and derives implications
for policy in the areas of science, agriculture, regulation, and technical
assistance, in both developing and developed countries.
CHAPTER TWO
The Green Revolution
Green Revolution is the term used to describe the spread of new agricultural technologies that dramatically increased food production in
the developing world beginning in the middle of the 20th century,
the impact of which is still felt today. In the 1940s, to address the
problem of impending famine from a growing imbalance between
population and food supply, the Rockefeller Foundation provided
funds for agricultural advances in developing nations and gathered
together a team of dedicated researchers from various parts of the
world. Other national and international institutions joined in this
effort over the following decades.
The crops that were developed as part of this effort were superior to other locally planted crops in yield increase, yield stability,
wide-scale adaptability, short growing season duration, resistance to
biotic stresses (diseases and insects), tolerance to abiotic stresses
(drought and flooding), and grain quality (Khush, 2001). Importantly, fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation systems were also introduced in many parts of the developing world, and this whole technology package was supported in many parts of Asia and Latin
America by subsidies and government-guaranteed product prices.
The Green Revolution has been credited with “making an astounding jump in basic food crops in the developing world, especially
Asia” (Baum, 1986, p. 1). It significantly increased food production
in Asia and Latin America at a time when massive malnutrition in
those areas was feared. Its success was due to a combination of circumstances that made the time ripe for an agricultural revolution to
11
12
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
take place in much of the developing world. Worldwide, policymakers saw increased food production as a priority after World War II
and set the wheels in motion to facilitate that goal. At the same time,
agricultural science and technology in the industrial world—which
produced hybrid seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation systems—
had advanced to the point that new technologies could be transferred
to other parts of the world where they could be useful. Indeed, universities in the United States played a crucial role in the advancement
of agricultural development in that they were a source of scientists
and a provider of education, particularly advanced degrees.
This chapter describes the science and technology, funding
sources, worldwide spread, and policies and political motivations of
the Green Revolution. We describe the factors in each of these areas
that contributed to increased food production and explain how those
factors were intertwined. At the end of the chapter, we provide lessons from the Green Revolution for future agricultural revolutions
(including the ongoing Gene Revolution) and describe the continual
problems that the Green Revolution was not able to solve—leaving
challenges for today’s agricultural scientists and policymakers.
Science and Technology
Two of the criteria for an agricultural revolution are a substantial improvement in food production and sustainable use of the relevant
technologies. The Green Revolution, in the many places that it was
adopted, met these criteria very well. What made the Green Revolution technologies successful in bringing about revolutionary change
was the integration of three factors: (1) plant breeding methodologies
that were adapted in innovative ways to produce regionally useful
crops, (2) scientists and researchers who combined a range of various
technologies to achieve their objectives, and (3) local scientists who
were given the necessary training to breed the crops themselves. These
three factors, along with programs and policies that kept farmers informed and protected their production incentives, were responsible
for a significant increase in food production.
The Green Revolution
13
Plant Breeding Methodologies
The plant breeding research that led to high-yield varieties (HYVs) of
staple food crops was perhaps the most important factor in the food
production increase. Several genetic traits were selected to increase
yield, yield stability, and wide-scale adaptability of rice, wheat, and
maize.
Three types of breeding strategies were used to develop these
three types of crops. The first was conventional breeding, in which
parents of the same line were crossed and the resulting offspring were
screened for desirable traits, and those offspring that contained the
traits for the next round of crossing were selected. The second strategy was hybrid breeding, in which plants from different lines were
crossbred to produce offspring with increased vigor. The third strategy, developed in Mexico, was the innovative technique of shuttle
breeding, which at the time violated the conventionally held belief
that plants had to be adapted to the native soils and climate in order
to be successful, and only if all selections were from plants that grow
in the actual area where the crossbred crops are to be produced could
the new varieties be well-adapted to their environment (Perkins,
1997). Shuttle breeding, in contrast, involves growing plants at various locations and crossbreeding between those lines to obtain offspring with widely adaptable traits that can be grown under diverse
growing conditions, and, more specifically, with improved resistance
to the devastating disease of wheat rust (Khush, 2001). As a result,
new high-yielding varieties of wheat, maize, and rice were developed
around the world with a better ratio of grain to straw, shorter and
sturdier stems, and better response to fertilizers (Pinstrup-Andersen
and Schioler, 2001). Notably, Norman Borlaug, the young plant pathologist and plant breeder who developed the shuttle breeding technique, went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his Green Revolution work.
Combined Technologies
The combination of irrigation systems, fertilizers, and pesticides,
along with the HYV seeds, was also key to the increase in food production (Pingali and Heisey, 2001). When the HYVs were grown
14
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
with these other inputs, they produced substantially higher yields
(Cleaver, 1972; Conway, 1998). Aside from increased yield in most
situations, another benefit that the combined Green Revolution
technologies provided was greater yield consistency in the face of differing agricultural conditions. For example, the Centro Internacional
de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) developed a maize
variety that gave the second-best yield in Mexico when external
planting conditions were optimal but inputs were less than optimal.
However, even in times of drought, the CIMMYT variety, combined
with the appropriate chemical inputs, provided by far the best yield
(Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001).
Table 2.1 illustrates the changes in adoption rates of various
Green Revolution technologies—acreage and percentage of new highyield crop varieties, irrigation, fertilizer consumption, number of tractors, and cereal production—in developing countries in Asia.
Table 2.1
Changes in Production Inputs in India, Pakistan, and China Due to the Green
Revolution
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Adoption
of HighYield
Wheat
Varieties
(million
ha/% of
total
growing
area)
Adoption
of HighYield Rice
Varieties
(million
ha/% of
total
growing
area)
Irrigation
(millions
of ha)
0/0
14/20
39/49
60/70
70/84
0/0
15/20
55/43
85/65
100/74
87
106
129
158
175
Fertilizer/
Nutrient
Consumption
(millions of
tonnes)
2
10
29
54
70
Tractors
(millions)
Cereal
Production
(millions of
tonnes)
0.2
0.5
2.0
3.4
4.8
309
463
618
858
962
SOURCE: Borlaug, 2003.
NOTES: ha = hectare (equivalent to 2.47 acres); tonne = metric ton.
The Green Revolution
15
Training of Local Scientists
Local scientists were given the necessary training to breed the crops
themselves so that they would be able to advance the agricultural
revolution in their own nations without continued supervision from
the outside. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) and the Rockefeller Foundation established a training
program that recruited young scientists from around the world to
learn the relevant agricultural disciplines. After their training was
completed, the scientists were given HYV semi-dwarf seeds to take
back to their respective nations (Perkins, 1997; Borlaug, 2003).
As a result of these successful new technologies and their transfer, food production improved enormously over the course of only a
few decades in many parts of the world. Taking Latin America as an
example, based on the combination of HYV wheat varieties, chemical
inputs, and expanded acreage, total maize production increased by
142 percent and total wheat production increased by 100 percent between 1961 and 1991 (according to FAO statistics [FAOSTAT]).
Even earlier, Mexico was able to achieve self-sufficiency in wheat and
maize production by 1956 through Green Revolution technologies
(Cleaver, 1972).
In Asia, HYV wheat and rice were first tested in the early 1960s,
and production campaigns were launched soon afterward. These
campaigns led to a sharp increase in adoption of HYV wheat and rice,
yields, and production. In South Asia, for example, rice production
more than doubled from 1961 to 1991, and wheat production almost
quadrupled in that time (according to FAOSTAT).
Funding
How the Green Revolution was financed can be seen as a twofold
process: funding the research to develop the technologies and to
transfer them to various parts of the world, and then financing the
agricultural technologies in those regions so that the local farmers
could afford to use them. International and domestic funders (i.e.,
funders within nations where Green Revolution technologies were
16
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
being promoted) were key to this process. International funders acted
first to provide the necessary monetary, scientific, and human capital,
and domestic funders cooperated with these international groups to
sustain the agricultural movement within particular regions. Importantly, the international sources of finance were public organizations,
both governmental and nongovernmental, acting ostensibly out of
public interest rather than from business-related motives.
Funders and scientists being involved in helping other nations
was a rather new concept at the time. Prior to World War II, there
was little support for nations working together to provide finances for
worldwide industrialization and agricultural modernization. An important exception was the Rockefeller Foundation, which already had
a program in China in the 1920s to improve wheat production (Perkins, 1997). But the outbreak of World War II changed the philanthropic programs of the Rockefeller Foundation as well as those of
other funders; as such, their efforts to improve agriculture took a
global turn. Public-sector funding and leadership turned out to be
crucial to ensuring the success of the Green Revolution. The Rockefeller Foundation in the 1940s is generally regarded as the “founder”
of the Green Revolution, with its programs committed to agriculture
in the developing world (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001).
Later, the World Bank, the FAO, and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) joined in the effort (Cleaver,
1972).
At the country level, success was usually due to collaboration between the international agricultural research centers (IARCs), governments, and their national agricultural research systems (NARS).
The IARCs gathered test nurseries of selected seeds, distributed them
widely to the NARS, and analyzed and shared the results of the seed
development. NARS, thus, had in their hands a wide selection of
germplasm for use in their own breeding programs from which to
develop locally adapted HYVs (Hardin, 2003).
Indeed, an important factor that contributed to the sustained
success of the Green Revolution was that scientists received financial
support from these public institutions to set up research centers in
developing nations. As such, they had firsthand information on what
The Green Revolution
17
the local farmers needed and what the local planting conditions were.
Furthermore, they were on site to train local farmers and scientists to
ensure that knowledge of how to use these new technologies would be
passed on.
Recognizing the importance of developing local expertise, organizations in developed countries pooled their resources to aid in the
effort to link industrial-world scientists with developing-world locations, which resulted in the formation of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CGIAR now includes
a system of 16 Future Harvest Centers working in more than 100
countries conducting research on all key crops of the developing
world and on livestock, fish, forestry, plant genetics, and food policy
(Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). With the creation of
CGIAR, support for the Green Revolution became more broad-based
and included European nations, Canada, and Japan. Now some 50
donors, including the World Bank, the United Nations, the United
States Agency for International Development, and other public organizations, have provided expanded funding for the Green Revolution
through and in association with CGIAR.
Farmers in Latin America and Asia were able to afford the relatively expensive HYV seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers through a combination of internationally provided subsidies and low-interest loan
systems. Adoption of the Green Revolution package was relatively
expensive; in Bangladesh, for example, the input costs were 60 percent more than those for traditional seed varieties. Small subsistence
farmers could afford these packages only if they borrowed money,
which usually came at a high interest rate. Establishment of rural
banks was important for adoption of the Green Revolution technologies in Asia and Central America (Conway, 1998).
The substantial production improvements that farmers experienced through these Green Revolution technologies enabled them to
pay off their loans quickly and easily. Moreover, the money earned
from the increased food production often meant that whole villages
could make investments in their schools and roads (Kilman and
Thurow, 2002), efforts that in the long run would further improve
18
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
not only agricultural output but also many other aspects of a community’s socioeconomic well-being.
Where the Green Revolution Occurred
The Green Revolution is generally considered to have been a success
in four distinct regions of the world: Latin America, China and
Southeast Asia, India and South Asia, and the United Kingdom
(UK). Except for the UK, success was generally defined by a production increase that staved off potential malnutrition, quite apart from
concerns about the environment, socioeconomic equality, or other
such issues. Millions of lives were at risk from malnutrition in Asia
and Latin America immediately after World War II, and results were
needed, fast. An increase in food production had to be the top Green
Revolution priority in those areas (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler,
2001).
Latin America
Latin America was a primary region of interest during the Green
Revolution because of a combination of need and local governmental
interest in improving agriculture. The European conquest and its
centuries-long aftermath had resulted in depletion of soil nutrients
and other natural resources that were necessary for sustainable crop
yields. The Rockefeller Foundation created the Mexican Agricultural
Program (MAP) in 1943 amid concerns about political stability and
national security as well as the specter of malnutrition.
The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Mexican government signed a memorandum of understanding in Mexico in early
1943 to establish the Office of Special Studies (OSS), a follow-up to
MAP, as a semi-autonomous research unit within the Mexican Department of Agriculture. Until its transformation in 1966 to the
CIMMYT, the OSS was the research center that spurred a major
transformation of Mexican agriculture (Perkins, 1997), increasing
yields in wheat and maize to an extent that effectively prevented
widespread famine.
The Green Revolution
19
Figure 2.1 shows the change in maize and wheat production in
Latin America and the Caribbean from 1961 to 1991. The primary
improvements in Mexico came before 1961; the rest of Latin America
and the Caribbean soon followed suit. Over those 30 years, production of both wheat and maize approximately doubled. In more recent
decades, production increases in maize have leveled off; however,
wheat production has continued to increase steadily. During this
same 30-year period, the combined populations in Latin America and
the Caribbean increased from about 417 million in 1960 to about
718 million in 1990 (Brea, 2003)—a 72 percent increase that is more
than matched by the increase in wheat and maize production.
Asia
The Green Revolution also achieved significant agricultural yield increases throughout Asia. Before the new agricultural technologies and
60
Maize
Wheat
Millions of metric tons
50
40
30
20
10
0
1961
1971
1981
1991
RAND MG161-2.1
Source: FAOSTAT.
Figure 2.1—Total Production of Maize and Wheat in Latin America and the
Caribbean, 1961 to 1991
20
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
practices were brought to the continent, wheat yield in India and
China was on par with that of Europe during the Middle Ages
(600–800 kilograms per hectare [kg/ha]). This yield was adequate
prior to 1960, because the population had stayed within the bounds
necessary to ensure adequate food supplies even with suboptimal agricultural practices. In the 1960s, however, India and China were experiencing improved living conditions and modern health-care techniques that prolonged life expectancy, which, compounded with high
fertility, could have led to massive malnutrition (Pinstrup-Andersen
and Schioler, 2001).
Fortunately, at that time, rice production increased substantially
throughout much of East and Southeast Asia, largely from strains developed at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the
Philippines. Founded in 1960 by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, IRRI began its research activities in 1962 with the development
of semi-dwarf breeding lines for rice. (Semi-dwarf strains have
shorter, sturdier stems to prevent them from bending and lodging the
rice grains in the ground.) Subsequently, rice production throughout
East and Southeast Asia grew from 52 million metric tons in 1961 to
about 125 million metric tons in 1991 (as shown in Figure 2.2)—a
much faster growth rate than that of the regional population, which
had almost doubled over that time.1
When India gained independence from Britain in the late
1940s, Pakistan was partitioned into an independent nation, causing
India to lose major areas of irrigated wheat land in the west, vast riceproducing areas in the east, and important agricultural research and
education facilities. The country was facing a crisis. N. C. Mehta, secretary of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, stated in 1951,
“The country can rise as a whole only if our agricultural economy
with its millions of farms and lakhs of villages is to revive with a new
sense of energy and well-being” (Perkins, 1997).
____________
1 International
Rice Research Institute website (http://www.irri.org/about/impact.asp).
The Green Revolution
21
140
Millions of metric tons
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1961
1971
1981
1991
RAND MG161-2.2
Source: FAOSTAT.
Figure 2.2—Total Rice Production in East and Southeast Asia, 1961 to 1991
In the two decades that followed the partitioning, India tried
several methods to deal with potential food shortages: expanding the
amount of farmland, establishing price controls, launching community development programs, and obtaining grants and low-cost sales
of surplus crops from the United States and other nations. Unfortunately, other government policies—import substitution, cheap food,
and industrialization at the expense of agriculture—rendered these
efforts largely ineffective (Cleaver, 1972; Farmer, 1986). After some
initial hesitancy, parts of India and other South Asian nations finally
embraced Green Revolution technologies.
Those measures paid off. Figure 2.3 shows the impact of the
Green Revolution on rice and wheat production in South Asia. Rice
production more than doubled from 1961 to 1991, and wheat production almost quadrupled in that time, more than matching the approximate doubling of the population in South Asia.2
____________
2 International
Rice Research Institute website.
22
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Millions of metric tons
160
140
Wheat
120
Rice
100
80
60
40
20
0
1961
1971
1981
1991
RAND MG161-2.3
Source: FAOSTAT.
Figure 2.3—Total Wheat and Rice Production in South Asia, 1961 to 1991
Thus, steady and significant increases in crop production throughout
East, Southeast, and South Asia, as in Latin America, prevented the
malnutrition that might have otherwise occurred with the soaring
populations of the second half of the 20th century.
The United Kingdom
The United Kingdom provides an example of the Green Revolution’s
significant impact on the industrial world. In the post-Colonial era
from 1935 to 1954, Britain was concerned over whether its lands
would produce sufficient food for its population because it had previously depended on imports from the colonies. It was especially concerned about wartime food production in the early 1940s (Perkins,
1997). Hence, throughout the United Kingdom, growers adopted the
Green Revolution technologies, particularly the high-yield crop varieties. The adoption of these varieties paid off: Britain produced only
23 percent of its wheat consumption in 1936–1939, but had boosted
that rate to 67 percent in 1974–1975 and to 77 percent in 1980–
1981 (Perkins, 1997). Whether or not an actual food crisis would
The Green Revolution
23
have occurred without the Green Revolution technology, Britain did
become more independent with regard to its key food crops.
A Failure in Africa?
Despite its successes in many parts of the world, the Green Revolution has not yet made a significant impact on most areas of Africa. In
the later part of the Green Revolution, four CGIAR centers were
founded in Africa. These centers have contributed to increases in the
production of maize, bananas, cassava, and rice. But these increases
have been limited, and the growing population has effectively neutralized these gains (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). Overall,
while average agricultural production in Asia after the Green Revolution has increased dramatically to nearly three tonnes per hectare
from 1960 to 1990, Africa’s production level has fallen to about one
tonne per hectare, which is about the average productivity of British
farmers during the reign of the Roman Empire (Conway, 2003).
Why hasn’t the Green Revolution been more effective in Africa?
Research that successfully identifies the constraints that had an actual
effect on the African situation has not yet been reported. However,
we postulate several factors that might explain this lack of success in
terms of the criteria for agricultural revolutions.
One possibility is that sub-Saharan Africa features types of agriculture that could not benefit from the technological packages developed through the Green Revolution for use in Asia and Latin America. Therefore, the criterion of substantial production increases could
not be met. The new HYV crops that were developed elsewhere in
the world were not suited to African planting conditions, where the
topsoil is thinner and weather patterns, such as periods of drought,
are more unpredictable (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). Serious and uniquely African agricultural problems persist. The staple
crop—maize—is attacked by insects, streak virus, and the parasitic
weed Striga that extracts nutrients from roots. Mealy bugs and mosaic
virus attack cassava. Weevils, nematodes, and the fungal disease black
Sigatoka attack bananas. Fungal diseases shrivel and weaken bean
pods, and drought is regularly occurring (Pinstrup-Andersen and
Schioler, 2001). These problems would have been difficult to over-
24
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
come through even the enhanced conventional means that the Green
Revolution employed. A number of the CGIAR centers, such as the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, or International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), have developed improved varieties of
sorghum, millet, cowpeas, cassava, potatoes, and sweet potatoes for
African use. But the sorts of dramatic yield improvements scored with
rice and wheat in Asia have not been achieved in Africa.
Also, infrastructural problems have continued to serve as a barrier to Green Revolution success in Africa. Inadequate property rights
protection have had the effect of blunting farmers’ production opportunities and incentives, leaving little possibility for private gain in
adopting new technologies. Local banks have been unable or unwilling to assist in providing the necessary loans for farmers to purchase
new technologies. It is also possible that cultural constraints that control particular divisions of labor among family members or particular
patterns and timing of planting, cultivating, and harvesting may be
stronger in Africa than in Asia and Latin America.
Even if there were a greater degree of cooperation among the
various African institutions in promoting Green Revolution practices,
and even if agricultural technologies would have proven to be more
successful, geography alone would limit the Green Revolution’s success in Africa. In the 1700s, Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations,
wrote that the inland parts of Africa would lag in economic development because of problems with transportation of goods. Moreover,
geography may affect other important determinants of agricultural
development, such as communications, human and animal health,
natural resources, and population density, as well as transportation
(Sachs, 1997). The African transportation system was poorly prepared to deliver Green Revolution technologies to the places they
were needed. Uganda and Ethiopia, for example, had fewer than 100
kilometers of paved roads per one million people as of 2001—
roughly 100 times fewer kilometers of roadway than in other developing nations such as Brazil and India, and some thousand times less
than in industrialized nations such as the United States and France
(Borlaug, 2003). In addition, many of the roads in Africa were de-
The Green Revolution
25
signed to lead to mines rather than farmlands. Because of these transportation obstacles, Green Revolution technologies could not reach
African farmers easily or reliably.
Partly as a result of these limitations, malnutrition has persisted
and indeed grown even worse in sub-Saharan Africa, unlike in other
regions of the world where malnutrition is on the wane. Despite
population increases over the past three decades, the percentage of
chronically malnourished has declined in most areas of the developing world, except for Africa, as Table 2.2 shows.
Through the efforts of the CGIAR centers that were established
in Africa and other important measures, agricultural development
eventually began with specific crops that are of particular importance
to the diets of sub-Saharan Africa. Table 2.3 indicates that significant
Table 2.2
Change in Percentage of the Chronically Malnourished Population in
Devel oping Countries, 1970 to 1990
1970
1990
East Asia
South
Asia
West Asia/
North Africa
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Latin
America
44%
16%
34%
24%
24%
8%
35%
37%
19%
13%
Source: Conway, 1998.
Table 2.3
Publicly Funded Agricultural Research, by Country, Crop, and Year Research
Began
Country
Research Target
Year Research Began
Chile
Mexico
Peru
Brazil
Colombia
Bangladesh
Philippines
Pakistan
Rwanda
Senegal
Wheat and maize
Wheat
Maize
Soybeans
Rice
Wheat and rice
Rice
Wheat
Potatoes
Cowpeas
1940
1943
1954
1955
1957
1961
1966
1967
1978
1981
SOURCE: Conway, 1998.
26
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
investments in African crop improvements did not begin until the
late stages of the Green Revolution. The table lists the years in which
research began in earnest for certain crops in various countries.
In summary, it may be that the Green Revolution has not failed
in Africa; rather, it has yet to be delivered to Africa in a way that will
truly revolutionize agriculture, for the reasons stated above.
Policies and Politics
It has been argued (Farmer, 1986; Perkins, 1997; U.S. Department
of Agriculture [USDA], 2003) that Green Revolution efforts came to
fruition in a particular context characterized by fear of famine, overpopulation, and the threatened rise of communist governments in
areas considered a strategic threat to the West. If so, then motivations
for the Green Revolution reach far beyond the agricultural and philanthropic realm. A number of various political motivations likely
shaped the success of the Green Revolution in certain parts of the
world, demonstrating on a larger scale the importance of cooperation
among the various stakeholders to enable the agricultural revolution
to succeed. Governmental agendas, both domestic and international,
were altered to accommodate the new agricultural advances.
Domestic Interests
In the mid-20th century, it was unquestioned that greater food production would lead to greater political stability globally as well as to
greater prosperity and security in developing nations. Various nations
at various socioeconomic levels all saw the need for vastly increased
agricultural production, for somewhat different reasons (Farmer,
1986).
In addressing the situation in Mexico, for example, Perkins
(1997) argued that beyond the desire to produce more food, the
Mexican Agricultural Program’s primary proponents within Mexico
wished to completely reshape the Mexican economy and intended to
use Green Revolution technologies as a means to that end. Namely,
to create a modern industrial state, agriculture would need to make
The Green Revolution
27
use of new technologies that were more labor-efficient so that a large
number of farmers could choose (or would be forced) to leave the rural areas and become part of the industrial workforce. Former human
labor from agriculture would have to provide at least part of the capital for Mexican industrialization.
India may have embraced the Green Revolution partly to recover from the damages caused by British imperialism and the shattering of the economy of British India after its independence (Farmer,
1986; Perkins, 1997). The security and autonomy of the Indian nation and foreign exchange considerations were the prime drivers in
the national commitment to support crop breeding. Although Gandhi had envisioned an India devoted almost entirely to agriculture,
many Indian leaders wished to develop the nation’s industrial sector
for the purpose of remaining competitive in the world market. They
decided that if industrialization were to occur, the wealth of the
countryside had to finance most of that industrial development—hence, the need for improved food yield. Moreover, the major
impetus for the rapid uptake of HYV seeds in South Asia was the two
consecutive crop failures during the monsoons of 1966 and 1967.
The United States, which was the only country in the world carrying
food reserves, shipped much of its surplus grain to India during those
years; however, such dependence on foreign aid was recognized by
both India and the United States as being risky and undesirable
(Conway, 1998).
The UK, too, expanded its commitment to crop breeding as it
struggled to reconstruct its post-imperialist economy. After the loss of
its significant food-producing colonial lands worldwide, the British
government saw the need for an independent food supply as an important component of its political agenda in the mid-20th century.
Prior to that time, Britain’s only prosperous area of agriculture was
livestock production. However, the emergency times of World War II
increased the need for British food production of crops, and the loss
of India, in particular, as a food producer in the late 1940s further
brought about policy pressures to improve agricultural production
through Green Revolution methods (Perkins, 1997).
28
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
International Interests
It has also been argued (Lipton, 1996; United Nations Development
Programme [UNDP], 1994) that much of the development aid
worldwide has supported large defense-oriented or commercial projects, with the improvement of living standards as a secondary goal at
best. A case in point concerns aid given for the Pergau Dam project
in Malysia. The Overseas Development Administration in the United
Kingdom had advised strongly against giving aid to this project because of its low developmental value in the region, but its opinion
was overruled on the grounds of safeguarding British defense contracts (Lipton, 1996). Although this is a different situation from the
agricultural pursuits in developing nations, similar national security
concerns influenced the decision to provide aid for the agricultural
technology transfer.
Although the Green Revolution did in fact significantly reduce
hunger and poverty in many parts of the developing world, the international motivation for its success extended beyond the goal of poverty reduction. In particular, the United States made significant
commitments at the federal and philanthropic levels to promote crop
breeding as part of the Cold War effort to contain the spread of
communism and possibly to foster other economic and foreign policy
objectives. President Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural speech emphasized the need for nations to unite against a communist force: “The
United States and other like-minded nations find themselves directly
opposed by a regime with contrary aims . . . that false philosophy is
communism.” To that end, Truman proposed four major courses of
action, the fourth of which concerned alleviating hunger and disease
in underdeveloped areas: “More than half the people of the world are
living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate.
They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to
more prosperous areas . . . . Greater [food] production is the key to
prosperity and peace” (Truman, 1949).
Communism was not the only political system that Green
Revolution visionaries wanted to thwart; other socialist or radical
movements were also to be quelled. There seemed to be two theories
The Green Revolution
29
about the purpose of the Green Revolution in Mexico. One was
genuine philanthropy—alleviating the poverty of Mexico’s masses
and thus empowering them to make choices that would improve their
lives. The other was the United States’ intent to restructure the Mexican economy toward industrialization. The United States envisioned
three ways that the Mexican government could evolve: (1) toward
liberal democratic capitalism and an industrial economy, (2) toward a
reversion to the quasi-feudal oppression of the hacendados (wealthy
plantation owners), or (3) continued socialist radicalism of the
Cárdenas era (Lázaro Cárdenas was Mexico’s president from 1934 to
1940) (Perkins, 1997). Cleaver (1972) suggested, more cynically, that
American aid in Mexico was part of the postwar effort to contain socialism specifically to “make the world safe for profits.”
In the 1940s, the Rockefeller Foundation also wanted to foster
the development of liberal democratic capitalism rather than see either socialism or fascism make further inroads. Although the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations wanted to make it clear to India that
they were independent and different from the United States government, in reality they shared the common goal of both humanitarian
outreach and “thwarting a perceived threat of communist subversion
and keeping India from going the way of China” (Perkins, 1997).
Clearly, agricultural technology transfer in developing nations
during the Green Revolution was linked too strongly to political and
economic events elsewhere to be analyzed on its own. Political support for improved crop breeding was linked to national security planning and to the need for countries to manage their foreign exchange.
Finally, it is interesting to note that Norman Borlaug, the most
prominent plant scientist of the Green Revolution and director of the
MAP wheat improvement program from 1944 to 1960, was awarded
a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his agricultural achievements in the
developing world. Indeed, the Nobel committee must have considered that food production is linked directly with domestic and international security, and that better agricultural yield in several key nations means a more peaceful world for everyone.
30
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Where the Green Revolution Fell Short: Remaining
Challenges
While the Green Revolution had a dramatic and lasting effect for the
better, it did not solve agricultural problems worldwide. As discussed
above, Africa is a case in point. The Green Revolution also left a
number of human health problems unsolved, and, in fact, has exacerbated certain socioeconomic and environmental problems. In the
same way that we can learn from all that the Green Revolution did
right, we can also draw lessons for the future from the new problems
it created and the issues it left unresolved.
Agricultural Challenges
The effectiveness of the Green Revolution is reaching a natural limit,
even as human populations in parts of the developing world continue
to rise. The population of the industrialized world may increase by
only 4 percent from 2000 to 2020, reaching about 1.24 billion. The
population of Africa, on the other hand, may well increase by 50 percent in that time and the population of the developing world as a
whole by 36 percent. By the year 2030, it is estimated that more than
eight billion persons may populate the world (United Nations Population Division, 2002). It is noteworthy that Africa, due to the lagging success of the Green Revolution on that continent and its greatest share of the population increase, is most in need of a new
agricultural revolution.
How will agricultural productivity keep up with this rate of
population growth? Studies have shown enormous productivity gains
in the early decades of the Green Revolution, followed by slower
gains more recently. Figure 2.4 shows the changes in annual rates of
growth in the yield of major cereals grown in China, one key nation
targeted by Green Revolution scientists. One can see that although
agricultural growth has continued to be positive in the past decade,
the rate of growth has slowed dramatically.
The Green Revolution
8%
31
1966–1975
7%
1976–1985
6%
1986–1995
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0
Rice
Wheat
Maize
RAND MG161-2.4
Source: Pingali and Heisey, 2001.
Figure 2.4—Annual Growth Rates in Yield for Rice, Wheat, and Maize in
China, 1966 to 1995
Even though adoption of HYV varieties and overall food production in various parts of the world are clearly increasing, as evidenced by the figures and tables in this chapter, the possibility of a
continuing rate of increase that would be necessary to feed evergrowing populations is diminishing (Conway, 2003).
Aside from technological limitations, farmland limitations make
future increases in the food supply difficult to achieve. Many agricultural sectors of Africa and Asia have no suitable untilled land left. In
1961, there were 0.44 hectares of farmland for every person in the
world. In 2000, the number fell to 0.26 hectares, and projections indicate that by 2050 the number will fall to 0.15 (Pinstrup-Andersen
and Schioler, 2001). Thus, from the standpoint of available arable
land, the situation does not look promising for the future, if the
technological status quo continues as it has. To increase production,
it is necessary to improve yields on currently existing fields, beyond
what Green Revolution technologies have been able to provide.
Norman Borlaug acknowledged the Green Revolution’s limitations in a 2003 speech: “There has been no great increase in the yield
32
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
capacity of wheat and rice since the dwarf varieties sparked off the
Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. In order to meet mankind’s rapidly escalating need for food, we need to come up with new
and appropriate technological methods for increasing the yield capacity of grains.”
Human Health Challenges
Although the Green Revolution did stave off hunger to a significant
extent on two continents, an estimated 800 million people still do
not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2000a), which will lead to malnutrition.
Chronically undernourished people have an insufficient caloric intake
to meet their daily energy needs, and malnutrition also results from
lack of proteins, vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients in the
diet. The most important sources of calories are cereals, the types of
crops for which plant breeders developed HYVs during the Green
Revolution; cereal diets that supply sufficient calories usually provide
enough protein as well. Malnutrition can lead to death, not just
through starvation, but because a poor diet leaves humans especially
vulnerable to illnesses such as diarrhea, measles, respiratory infections,
and malaria (Conway, 1998; Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001).
Children whose mothers were malnourished and are themselves
lacking basic nutrients and calories are at further risk of a number of
developmental disorders. The United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) (1998) estimated that malnutrition is the cause of about
12 million deaths annually of children under the age of five in developing countries.
Aside from not having enough to eat in terms of calories, people
in developing nations often eat unbalanced diets. For example, those
who eat primarily boiled rice or maize porridge rarely consume
enough meat or green vegetables to balance their nutritional needs.
Meat, vegetables, fruit, and fishery products are important sources of
vitamins and micronutrients that are lacking in cereals. Developed
nations have vitamin pills and enriched foods to make up for potential dietary shortages, but pills and enriched food are not yet practical
options for the developing world. Specifically, lack of proper nutri-
The Green Revolution
33
tional variety in African diets, in some cases along with inadequate
calories, has resulted in 65 percent of African women of childbearing
age being anemic, 40 million children being severely underweight,
and 50 million being vitamin-A deficient.
Although food prices have become lower and many developing
nations produce enough food in the aggregate, many people still go
hungry. Indeed, food intake among the poorest people experienced
negligible improvement throughout the Green Revolution (Lipton
and Longhurst, 1989). This is particularly true in poor rural areas
where food prices are still too high, and people cannot grow enough
food or buy enough food because their income is too low or they are
unable to find food in other ways. A large number of the poorest and
most oppressed people are women. In Nepal, women work an average
of 11 hours a day compared with seven hours a day for men. The
schooling of women is also inadequate: For developing nations as a
whole, there are 86 women for every 100 men in primary schooling
and 75 for every 100 in secondary schooling (Conway, 1998).
The Green Revolution has fallen short of providing the sorts of
nutritional changes that would relieve some of these specific problems, not to mention the problems surrounding food distribution to
ensure that the increased food supply is getting to the places where
people need it the most.
Socioeconomic Challenges
As a result of increased food production in the Green Revolution, a
number of socioeconomic changes occurred in the regions where the
revolution “succeeded.” One result that occurred in the Indian Punjab was that the demand for land increased dramatically, driving up
its price as much as five times. In many cases, only the wealthiest
could afford to buy the land and often converted their tenants into
hired laborers to reduce costs (Cleaver, 1972). This situation resulted
in a greater dichotomy between the rich and the poor, and landowners and laborers. Thus, socioeconomic power became more concentrated in the hands of a few rather than many.
What are some of the causes of these inequities? In India, for
example, adoption of Green Revolution technologies was strongly
34
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
correlated with water supply. Where irrigation was available, Green
Revolution adoption was nearly 100 percent, but where irrigation was
unavailable, adoption was under 50 percent. For the most part, small
farmers on less-well-favored lands received few benefits and in some
cases became poorer, because the price of grain went down. In many
cases, small farmers also suffered from loss of land ownership. In
Ethiopia, for example, the Chilalo Agricultural Development Project
that began in 1967 led to massive evictions of landowners’ tenants as
large farmers replaced human labor with tractors and combines. Before the project, tenancy rates were at about 50 percent; by 1972,
tenancy had fallen to about 12 percent. Many of the displaced small
farmers moved to urban areas (Conway, 1998).
These displaced farmers then moved into the cities and experienced little, if any, improvement in their living standards. Women in
some settings lost access to and control of more primitive agricultural
resources in the transformation to more modern agriculture. In Mexico, when the elimination of subsistence farming became government
policy, women were not provided with new economic roles in the
modern sector. Many moved into low-paying jobs in newly built factories, which provided neither the security nor the dignity of traditional agriculture (Perkins, 1997).
Not all socioeconomic changes led to greater disparities between
the land-owning and the landless, however. The early adopters of
HYVs were typically those with larger farms. Over time, however,
small farmers adopted the HYVs as well, so that, in South India at
least, there were no systematic differences in adoption rates by farm
size (Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991). Moreover, work activities other
than cultivation and agricultural wage work became more important
in South India. Those activities included weaving, herding sheep, and
a variety of service occupations, including local government jobs
(Harriss, 1991).
The technologies introduced in Asia and Latin America in the
Green Revolution generally required not more land, but chemical
fertilizer and well-timed water. Farmers who could access these inputs
did well while others did not. To the extent that large landholders
The Green Revolution
35
also had access to fertilizer and irrigation, they tended to adopt the
new technologies early and successfully.
It is important to remember that the goal of the Green Revolution was not to provide a cure for socioeconomic disparities, but to
improve food production. Hence, these ancillary problems still exist
and will persist until the emergence of a more comprehensive agricultural revolution makes socioeconomic well-being across all stakeholders a priority.
Environmental Challenges
While the Green Revolution played a key role in achieving food security and reducing rural poverty in key areas of the developing world,
it was environmentally harmful in many settings. Some of the bestirrigated lands have become overly saline3 since irrigation was introduced as part of Green Revolution technology, which has made crop
planting difficult if not impossible. Irrigation cannot continue today
in many areas because of decreasing water availability and resulting
soil salinity. These conditions were exacerbated during the Green
Revolution by the need for irrigated lands so that high-yield varieties
could succeed (Ruttan, 1998; Conway, 1998). In addition, water tables have diminished, leading to problems with water accessibility for
agriculture.
Moreover, waterways and soils have become contaminated by
the large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers used on Green Revolution farmlands. Pesticides and nitrates in drinking water have proven
to be detrimental to human and animal health. An unfortunate consequence of overuse of pesticides in particular areas is that crop pests
have developed resistance to the pesticidal chemicals, rendering the
chemicals ineffective. Indeed, these environmental spillovers have had
a depressing effect on agricultural production, the very thing they
were intended to improve (Ruttan, 1998).
Increasingly, agricultural planners are realizing the need for a
“Doubly Green Revolution” (Conway, 1998)—one that will provide
____________
3 The
water used in irrigation is usually saline seawater.
36
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
the kinds of yield increases achieved by the Green Revolution while
being environmentally sustainable and protective of human and animal health.
Lessons from the Green Revolution
Although the world has changed since the mid-20th century, it is still
possible to draw lessons from the Green Revolution’s successes and
failures to inform the GM crop movement. We believe that the following lessons, condensed from the analysis presented in this chapter,
will enable future agricultural scientists and policymakers to learn
from and build upon the Green Revolution’s many successes, and at
the same time to address the issues it left unsolved and to avoid its
mistakes.
Successes of the Green Revolution
• In the developing world, a factor that is as important as yield
improvement is consistency of yield, especially in the face of uncertain conditions such as sporadic rainfall and unanticipated
pest infestations. The HYV seeds and accompanying chemicals
of the Green Revolution were able to accomplish yield consistency. Genetically modified crops must also be able to provide
such consistency of results.
• The Green Revolution demonstrated that public-sector funding
and leadership are desirable, and may be necessary, to garner a
wide base of financial support and make the costs of agricultural
technology reasonable to growers. Likewise, it may be beneficial
for the GM crop movement to gain public support for a successful transfer to the developing world.
• Vital to the success of the Green Revolution was the practice of
training scientists and farmers in the developing world so that
they would be able to carry out the farming techniques independently and to train others in their localities—in other words,
the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices. Likewise, if
The Green Revolution
37
GM crops are to be a benefit to the developing world, local scientists and farmers must learn how to use them appropriately.
• Farmers must be able to afford the technologies. Green Revolution methods to achieving this end, such as the loan systems described earlier in the “Funding” section, proved to be successful
and may be worthwhile for GM crop adoption in the developing world.
• Local infrastructures need to be conducive to the introduction of
key technologies. The fact that this was the case in Latin America and Asia, but not in Africa, and that it made a difference in
where the Green Revolution really took off point to the importance of appropriate infrastructures to support agricultural technology. Infrastructural considerations are equally important for
the GM crop movement.
• During the Green Revolution, national governments had motivations other than the desire to increase food production behind
their support for agricultural technology. For example, some
countries, such as Mexico, were looking to completely reshape
their national economy. Nations that are similarly motivated
may be more open to accepting agricultural movements, such as
the GM crop movement, which can secondarily bolster their
other goals.
Issues Left Unresolved by the Green Revolution
• The Green Revolution’s success in the developing world was
measured by farmers’ adoption levels and evidence of increased
food production, rather than by considerations such as improved environmental quality or socioeconomic improvements.
However, a new agricultural revolution will fall under public
scrutiny as to whether adequate food distribution is achieved
and what sorts of environmental or socioeconomic disruptions
may take place. As such, environmental quality and socioeconomic improvements need to be taken into consideration.
Meeting these concerns must be a priority for the GM crop
movement.
38
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
• A new agricultural revolution, such as the GM crop movement,
will need to address sub-Saharan Africa’s unique agricultural
challenges, because this is the area of the world that is most in
need of improved food production and food-supply stability.
All the factors discussed in this chapter—new science and technologies, funding sources, regions of interest having appropriate local
infrastructures (so that the movement can take root), political motivations, and economic policies—must fall into place in the right way
for an agricultural revolution to succeed. If GM crop technology is to
achieve revolutionary status on a global scale, these factors would
need to be aligned somewhat differently than they are at present. In
the next chapter, we examine how these conditions must be aligned.
CHAPTER THREE
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
Since the mid-1980s, research teams in biotechnology firms worldwide have been transplanting genes across species to produce engineered crops with pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, tolerance to
drought and saline soils, and enhanced micronutrient content. These
genetically modified crops were first commercialized on a wide scale
in the early 1990s. Today, they make up anywhere from a quarter to
three-quarters of the total acreage of select crops in the United States,
Canada, Argentina, and China (James, 2003).
This new technology comes at a time of great need for increased
food production in certain regions of the world. In its heyday, the
Green Revolution achieved dramatic successes, transforming agricultural production and averting wide-scale famine in many parts of the
world. But the transformation it engendered was not complete. As we
discussed in Chapter Two, despite all that the Green Revolution accomplished, hunger and malnutrition have persisted, particularly in
Africa. Food security, the long-run sustainability of agricultural production systems, and the quality of the natural resource base are still
important issues worldwide. In addition, pressures from population
growth and inappropriate socioeconomic infrastructures have created
problems with deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution (Alston,
Norton, and Pardey, 1995).
All of these issues call out for a new agricultural revolution. The
Green Revolution laid out a path for what needs to happen for a new
agricultural movement to be revolutionary. In those terms, the GM
crop movement, or “Gene Revolution,” may have great potential to
39
40
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
be revolutionary because it has already reached some of the points on
that path. Indeed, it can already be called a revolution on a limited
scale. But there are significant differences between the Green and
Gene Revolutions—both in the technology they employ and the context in which they exist.
In this chapter, we describe what is currently happening in the
GM crop movement, what is not happening that should happen if it
is to become revolutionary in the developing world, and the significant obstacles that stand in the way of its success. We again closely
examine certain aspects of the movement discussed in Chapter Two:
science and technology, funding, areas where the movement is occurring, and policies and politics.
Science and Technology
Like the Green Revolution that preceded it, the GM crop movement
employs a combination of previously unheard-of technologies in
plant breeding, with the goal of improving agricultural yields. Unlike
the Green Revolution techniques, Gene Revolution techniques involve cutting-edge biotechnological advances to achieve this goal.
And for the most part, scientists in the developing world have not yet
been trained in these technologies such that they can produce their
own GM crop seeds.
The term “biotechnology” encompasses all the techniques that
use organisms, or parts of organisms, to produce or alter a product, or
that develop microorganisms for specific purposes. By far the most
prominent example of biotechnology in agriculture is genetically
modified crops. GM crops contain genes that are artificially inserted
instead of the plants’ acquiring them through sexual means. The
transgene (artificially inserted gene) may come from a completely different species. Bt corn and Bt cotton, for example, contain genes
from different subspecies of a soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
that give plants the ability to manufacture their own pesticides. Depending on where and for what purpose the plant is grown, desirable
genes may provide features such as higher yield or improved quality;
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
41
pest or disease resistance (as with Bt crops); tolerance to heat, cold, or
drought; or enhanced nutritional content—all desirable agricultural
traits for farmers and consumers in the developing world.
Agricultural Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops
Many genetically modified food crops are now planted around the
world. The most common are GM soybeans, followed by GM corn,
cotton, and canola. Others are GM tomatoes, potatoes, papayas,
chicory, melons, rice, squash, sugar beets, and wheat.1
One of the most common and important purposes of GM crops
today is to confer tolerance to herbicides that are sprayed on farmland
to control weeds. Herbicide-tolerant crops include transgenes providing tolerance to the herbicides glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium. These herbicides are broad spectrum, meaning that they kill
nearly all kinds of plants except those that have the tolerance gene.
Thus, a farmer can apply a single herbicide to his fields of herbicidetolerant crops, and can use the herbicide effectively at most crop
growth stages as needed. Another important benefit is that this class
of herbicides breaks down quickly in the soil, eliminating residue carryover problems and reducing adverse environmental impacts (Byrne
et al., 2004).
Another common purpose of genetic modification of crops is to
confer protection against insect pests. Importantly, this crop trait
could substantially improve yields in the developing world where pest
damage is rampant and/or reduce use of chemical pesticides. The soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis in Bt corn and Bt cotton produces
crystal proteins that are toxic to certain insects but generally harmless
to vertebrates and non-lepidopteran insects. The genetic insertion of
the bacterial gene into the plant genome enables the plant to produce
its own pesticide. Depending on the subspecies of the bacterium from
which the gene is taken, the pesticide is toxic to insects of the orders
Lepidoptera (which includes the common corn pests, European corn
borer, Southwestern corn borer, and corn earworm), Diptera (mos____________
1 See
www.agbios.com for more information.
42
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
quitoes), or Coleoptera (beetles) (Wu, 2002). Other purposes of modification in current and past GM crops include changing the fat and
acid composition of the crop (canola and soybeans), conferring male
sterility (chicory), conferring resistance to viral infection (papaya),
and delaying time to ripeness to allow for longer transportation time
and shelf life (tomatoes).
Future GM crops may be able to benefit farmers in other ways
previously unrealized. Some GM crops may be able to grow in conditions that have been unsuited for agriculture. For example, scientists
have developed and may soon be marketing a type of genetically
modified tomato that is able to grow in salty soil. This type of modified tomato is particularly useful in areas where crops could not be
grown previously because of soil salinity. The tomato itself channels
the excess salt into its leaves so that the fruit retains its “normal” flavor (Zhang and Blumwald, 2001). Other GM crops are now being
developed that are well suited to drought conditions, that survive in
soil heavy in metals such as aluminum, that convert or “fix” nitrogen
from the air, and that produce vaccines against common diseases such
as cholera and hepatitis B (Byrne et al., 2004). Because farmers would
thus be able to grow crops in otherwise difficult conditions, these
crops, if affordable, could be an attractive option for farmers in areas
with poor agricultural lands, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.
Potential Health Benefits of GM Crops
Most of the types of genetically modified crops grown today were
produced with the intent to benefit agriculture, in the variety of ways
described above. However, even these current types of GM crops
have some indirect health benefits. For example, crops such as Bt
corn that are genetically modified to produce insecticidal proteins
have been shown in field studies to have lower levels of mycotoxins—
chemical toxins and carcinogens produced by fungi (Munkvold and
Hellmich, 1999; Dowd, 2001; Schaafsma et al., 2002; Hammond et
al., 2003). While the benefits of mycotoxin reduction in Bt crops are
achieved primarily through reduced market losses in the industrialized world (i.e., farmers’ crops will be more readily accepted if mycotoxin contamination is low), this benefit could have a significant
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
43
health impact in the developing world, where exposure to food-borne
mycotoxins is higher and few regulations exist to protect consumers
(Wu, Miller, and Casman, forthcoming). Moreover, because GM
crops are more cost-effective for the farmers that adopt them, food
prices go down, resulting in savings to consumers (Conway, 1998;
Wu, 2004). Decreased food prices could then lead people to buy a
greater variety of foods (Conway, 1998), thereby improving the nutritional content of their diets.
Future GM crops could also have substantial direct nutritional
or medicinal benefits to consumers. Crops could, for example, be genetically modified to produce micronutrients vital to the human diet.
One type of crop in the making is “golden rice,” genetically modified
to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A. Currently,
about 400 million people in the world are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which can lead to serious morbidity including night blindness, respiratory diseases, and even childhood death (Toenniessen,
2000). Rice modified with daffodil and bacterial genes would be able
to produce beta carotene, which could in turn lead to a more balanced diet that could contribute to enhanced health in regions where
rice is a staple of the diet. This type of crop would thus be potentially
beneficial among Asian and African populations that suffer from
malnutrition. Canola, too, can be genetically modified to enhance
vitamin E content or to better balance fatty acids (Byrne et al., 2004).
Food crops engineered to produce edible vaccines against infectious diseases would make vaccination more readily available to children around the world. Because of their palatability and adaptation to
tropical and subtropical environments, bananas have received considerable research attention as a vehicle for vaccine delivery. Transgenic
(i.e., GM) bananas containing inactivated viruses protecting against
common developing-world diseases, such as cholera, hepatitis B, and
diarrhea, have been produced and are currently undergoing evaluation (Byrne et al., 2004). Because they would produce only the necessary antigens, these types of vaccine-producing GM crops may be
safer than traditional vaccines whose additional materials often cause
harmful side effects (Conway, 1998).
44
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Table 3.1 summarizes current and potential environmental and
health benefits of genetically modified crops. The future may bring
even more benefits as genetic technologies improve.
Potential Risks of GM Crops
In the first decades of the Green Revolution, risks to human health
and to the environment from the accompanying pesticides, fertilizers,
and irrigation were not a significant concern. Consequently, the
Green Revolution had little problem achieving the level of public acceptance that was necessary for it to have a revolutionary impact. But
GM crops are a different story, due in part to the adverse environmental outcomes of the Green Revolution that eventually came under
public scrutiny.
The introduction of genetically modified crops into the food
supply has generated a number of concerns about potential risks associated with this new agricultural technology. Depending on the seriousness of these risks, they may limit the GM movement’s impact.
The risks fall under the broad categories of human health and the environment. When a new gene producing a novel protein is introduced into a crop, there is a chance that human subpopulations may
have an allergic reaction to the protein (Byrne et al., 2004). Also, GM
crops may adversely affect non-target species; for example, a GM
pest-protected plant targeting lepidopteran pests may spread toxinTable 3.1
Current and Potential Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops
Agricultural Benefits
Herbicide tolerance
Protection against insect damage
Virus resistance
Tolerance to salty soil
Drought tolerance
Human Health Benefits
Reduction of mycotoxin contamination
Lowered food costs potentially leading
to more-varied diets
Nutrient enhancement
Vaccine production
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
45
containing tissues, such as pollen, that may contaminate the food of
non-target lepidopterans.2 Cross-pollination between GM crops and
non-GM crops, or GM crops and wild plant species, may occur, with
unknown consequences. Insects may eventually develop resistance to
the insecticidal proteins produced by Bt crops, leading to inefficacy of
both these crops and microbial Bt sprays (the latter of which is valued
among organic farmers) (Gould et al., 1997; Andow and Alstad,
1998). A host of other risks surrounding GM crops may exist of
which we are currently unaware (Wu, 2002).
Many of these risks, particularly those regarding food safety and
impacts on non-target species, have undergone extensive scientific
research (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2001). Most
of this research has found no evidence that such risks exist among
current GM crops. Indeed, 81 scientific studies financed by the
European Commission have all shown no evidence of risk to human
and animal health or to the environment from genetically modified
crops (Paarlberg, 2003). However, it is impossible at this stage to
fully investigate all potential risks, current and future, of GM crops,
and the challenges posed for such investigations by the ongoing development of GM varieties are substantial.
Funding
The Green Revolution has made it clear how important funding is to
enable an agricultural movement to become revolutionary. In that
case, financial support came largely from the public sector. Today,
there is still a significant need to fund new agricultural research and
technology transfer in the developing world. But biotech research and
development (R&D) takes place almost exclusively in the developed
world within private industry.
Genetically modified crops are largely the product of private industry. This is partly because new technologies are far more costly
____________
2
This particular risk has been shown to be insignificant in the United States (Sears et al.,
2001), but has not been thoroughly tested in the developing world.
46
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
than existing ones, and the biotechnology industry was able to gather
the necessary funds to develop these technologies long before public
awareness of GM crops could lead to publicly generated funding for
GM crop development (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). Successful companies must focus on their markets with the intent of generating profit. With regard to agricultural biotechnology, companies
in the United States and elsewhere have thus far created primarily
seeds that farmers in industrialized countries can and will purchase:
corn and soybeans that can tolerate a particular herbicide, corn and
cotton that are resistant to particular pests, and food crops that last
longer on the supermarket shelf. Because of the “technology fee” that
growers pay to use these crop seeds (including recoupment of industry’s research and development costs as well as profit), and because
the seeds are designed particularly for their planting situations, the
targeted farmers in industrialized countries have generally found it
worthwhile to buy these seeds and have been willing to pay the technology fee (Wu, 2004).
For this reason, there are currently two primary financial obstacles to using agricultural biotechnology in the developing world:
(1) the lack of incentive on the part of the biotechnology industry to
produce GM crops that are applicable in the developing world; and
(2) intellectual property issues that discourage R&D by organizations,
public and private, other than the firm first developing a technology.
Because of these obstacles, GM crops that would be important to
farmers in the developing world are in many places either unavailable
or too expensive to be of practical use. Unless these crop seeds can be
made more affordable, farmers will lack the incentive to use them and
the chance of a revolutionary impact in the developing world will be
small.
A fundamental challenge in this newest agricultural movement
that did not arise during the Green Revolution is the definition and
treatment of intellectual property (IP). IP issues are central to the
Gene Revolution because whereas science and technology move forward through the sharing of ideas and resources, IP ambiguities and
restrictions can often limit the valuable diffusion of science and technology. Commercial application of biotechnology has taken place
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
47
primarily in the United States and primarily through the private sector. The issue of who “owns” a particular event (the successful transformation) of a genetically modified crop and who can develop it further has become so economically important and contentious that
numerous cases involving this issue are now being litigated (Woodward, 2003). Some observers consider IP issues to be one of the most
important impediments to the development and adoption of GM
crops in the developing world (Shoemaker et al., 2001; Cayford,
2004).
Several large multinational corporations that combine seed industries with chemical industries currently dominate agricultural biotechnology. These profit-driven companies have seen little reason to
invest in expensive research and regulatory costs to produce crops that
are grown on relatively few acres and must be heavily subsidized for
poor farmers to afford. Inevitably, private research focuses on needs
of capital-intensive farming; research to feed the poor is less attractive,
as it involves long lead times, risk related to unpredictable agricultural
conditions and disregard of intellectual property rights, and beneficiaries with little capacity to pay (Conway, 1998). New agricultural
technologies are usually expensive to develop because of the need for
a large research infrastructure and the cost of meeting strict regulatory
requirements. Therefore, corporations have focused their resources on
creating biotech crops for farmers in industrialized nations, and not
on biotech varieties of developing-world “orphan crops” 3 such as cassava, millet, sorghum, cowpeas, or yams (Conway, 2003).
Because of the private sector’s role in the financial organization
of the GM crop movement, IP considerations arise. Corporations
own the rights to many of the necessary technologies and knowledge
that lead to the development of useful GM crops; thus, public researchers in agricultural biotechnology as well as other private companies are often unable to access those technologies and knowledge
that they need, or are legally blocked from using what they do know.
____________
3
Orphan crops, while not considered important as far as export markets (as are maize,
wheat, and beans), are nevertheless important in the diets of people in certain less-developed
countries.
48
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Yet, it is important to remember that lack of intellectual property
protection could make industry less willing to invest in developing
countries (Shoemaker et al., 2001).
This is not to say that, left to its own devices, the private sector
would ignore the concerns of the developing world altogether when
developing agricultural biotechnologies. In fact, some firms have recently expressed an interest in working with regional institutions to
develop crops that would be beneficial to the developing world. In
addition, they are willing to donate a substantial portion of their scientific knowledge, such as genomes of key food crops, for the purpose
of increasing agricultural knowledge capital in the developing world.
Moreover, several public-sector initiatives or partnerships between private and public sectors have emerged, with the technology
transfer of GM crops to the developing world as one of their goals. A
notable example is the Rockefeller Foundation’s African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (AATF), which seeks to facilitate useful
combinations of biotechnology with other methods of improving and
empowering African agriculture. AATF is an African-led, Africanbased organization designed to eliminate many of the barriers that
have prevented smallholding farmers from gaining access to agricultural technologies. Genetically modified crops, as well as other tools
of biotechnology, are one part of this goal; but importantly, AATF
works toward an integrated approach to solving food security issues in
Africa, which was previously left largely untouched by the benefits of
the Green Revolution. Another such example is the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Supported by a combination of corporations, government agencies,
and foundations, ISAAA is a nonprofit organization that focuses on
bringing GM crops to the developing world.
However, studies on industrial decisionmaking in agriculture
have shown that key determinants of the private sector’s decision to
invest in agricultural research are: (1) the perceived size of the market,
and (2) the ability to reduce transaction costs when farms are larger
(Shoemaker et al., 2001). Most markets and farms in the developing
world are small, and thus provide little incentive to the private sector
to fund agricultural research that will help them.
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
49
Several important funding practices would need to occur for the
GM crop movement to become revolutionary in the developing
world. As the history of the Green Revolution makes clear, publicly
funded research, if deliberately aimed at low-cost food production,
can benefit developing-world farmers (Conway, 1998). Thus, one
important component of the GM crop movement in the developing
world is increased public-private-sector partnership. While this is
happening to a small extent in the GM crop movement today, increased collaboration between these sectors would likely expedite the
transfer of agricultural biotechnologies to poorer regions of the world.
Another important component of the GM crop movement is that
intellectual property processes must be established to ensure appropriate protection and incentives to laboratories and manufacturers,
while providing public researchers and developing-world farmers with
access to the necessary tools for technology transfer. Such processes
will allow GM crop seed to be affordable to the growers that would
most benefit from them.
Where the Gene Revolution Is Occurring
The Green Revolution had such a sizable impact because it took place
in areas that were ripe for an agricultural revolution—namely, Asia
and Latin America in the developing world and Great Britain among
industrialized nations. Concerns about impending massive malnutrition, food security in the near future, and unwelcome political influences were all key pressures driving the need to adopt Green Revolution technology. Today, such needs are still present in much of the
developing world, and most of all in sub-Saharan Africa. How has the
GM crop movement been addressing these concerns?
Thus far, the Gene Revolution has made its mark in only several
places. Four nations—the United States, Canada, Argentina, and
China—are together planting 99 percent of the world’s total acreage
of genetically modified crops (James, 2003). China, in fact, was the
first country to commercialize GM crops in the early 1990s, with the
introduction of virus-resistant tobacco, followed soon by virus-
50
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
resistant tomatoes (James, 1997). Some five million farmers have
been growing GM cotton there for six years, with higher yields and
without laborious and hazardous pesticide spraying (Conway, 2003).
And as of March 2004, Britain has allowed the commercial planting
of one type of GM herbicide-resistant corn.
It is too early to forecast where around the world genetically
modified crops will provide a benefit to local agriculture and where
they might be adopted. After all, GM crops have been commercialized for only about a decade, while Green Revolution technologies
have been in use more than four decades. Even though there is a clear
need for radical improvement in food production in certain regions,
real obstacles stand in the way for agricultural biotechnology to meet
that need. One obvious constraint is that the types of GM crops
available today are not beneficial in many parts of the developing
world. For example, the genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops
that are so popular in the United States and Canada are of little use in
developing nations where farmers do not use herbicides on a regular
basis. Another constraint, discussed earlier, is that the new agricultural biotechnologies that may be beneficial are currently unaffordable for many farmers in the developing world.
Figure 3.1 shows that while the total acreage devoted to GM
crops is steadily increasing in both industrialized and developing
countries, GM crop acreage is much higher in industrialized areas.
This is despite the considerably larger acreage of farmland in the developing world.
Of those parts of the developing world where GM crops are
grown, South Africa and India are the most prominent. In the
Makhathini Flats of South Africa, for example, farmers have been
growing GM cotton for four years (Conway, 2003). India, a nation
that had previously shunned agricultural biotechnology, recently harvested its first Bt cotton crop (genetically modified to protect against
insect pest damage). Qaim and Zilberman (2003) found a 79 percent
average increase in Bt cotton varieties over conventionally planted
varieties in India in 2002. If GM crop adoption in these nations is
sustained over the next several years and possibly beyond, the GM
movement may indeed be considered revolutionary in those areas.
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
51
80
Total
Industrial
countries
Developing
countries
Millions of hectares
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
RAND MG161-3.1
SOURCE: James, 2003.
Figure 3.1—Area Devoted to Genetically Modified Crops, 1996 to 2003
Closely linked to the question of whether the GM crop movement becomes revolutionary in a particular region is whether the
people of that region are willing to accept the new technologies and
to adapt their lifestyles to meet the changes that the technologies may
bring—criteria for a successful agricultural revolution.
In terms of a people’s acceptance of the new technologies, first,
there are the direct impacts on food and culture. Compared with
most Americans, people in many parts of the developing world place
a higher level of importance on food as part of their culture (Echols,
2002). Americans themselves felt wary about hybrid corn when it was
first grown on U.S. farms in the 1920s and 1930s (Griliches, 1957),
so it is not difficult to imagine what the cultural impact might have
been, or might be, in nations worldwide from the high-yield hybrid
crop varieties of the Green Revolution, and even more so from genetically modified crops. To this end, GM crops have already become
a stigmatized technology in many parts of the world (Paarlberg,
2002) because of a widespread fear of “Franken-food” and “playing
52
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
God” with nature. Mistrust of industry may also play a role in these
concerns.
Second, GM crops may have indirect impacts that change the
culture of a region more slowly, which will affect whether the GM
crop movement can become sustainable in a revolutionary way. Shifts
in socioeconomic status due to increased food production and new
agricultural methods can benefit certain groups in society but may
cause other groups to suffer. For example, in the first third of the
20th century, machines increasingly replaced humans on farms, first
in the industrialized world, then in parts of the developing world. But
only those farmers who had access to sufficient land holdings to make
the machinery useful had incentives to participate, and of those farmers, only those who could afford the purchase price could participate.
Smaller farmers tended to suffer from the lower product prices resulting from increased production overall, and many sold or lost their
land. GM crops, besides being costly, may also favor those farmers
with large land holdings—an outcome that would be unacceptable to
many stakeholder groups. The lack of acceptability of this outcome
on a regional basis, combined with the price of GM crops, could prevent the GM crop movement from achieving revolutionary impacts
in some regions.
Moreover, the new intellectual property issues associated with
GM crops would require agricultural practices that differ substantially
from traditional farming methods among subsistence farmers. Patent
rights require farmers who want to plant GM crops to buy new seed
every season. This requirement is not usually a problem in the industrialized world, because industrialized-world farmers have already
been buying new seed for each season since their adoption of hybrid
varieties. Agribusiness in richer nations values crops that have uniform qualities (e.g., uniform height, weight, and development time),
and these qualities are much more easily achieved through seed newly
bought each year (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). But developing-world farmers are often not willing or able to buy new seed
every season. About 80 percent of developing-world farmers currently
save seed from the previous season (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler,
2001) in order to cut costs. Under current intellectual property stan-
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
53
dards, a substantial change not just in practice, but also in the shift of
cultural mindset from subsistence living to agribusiness, would need
to take place for the Gene Revolution to succeed among developing
world farmers.
Policies and Politics
Interestingly, the main constraint on the potential of GM crops in
the developing world may not have to do with either agricultural
conditions or credit availability, but with precautionary regulations.
Policies and regulations for genetically modified crops have evolved
very differently from those for Green Revolution technologies. In the
years leading up to the Green Revolution, policymakers saw a political need for agricultural improvement worldwide, advanced this cause
as a key policy concern, and ensured that funds were appropriated
toward the cause. Plant scientists moved into foreign nations and
aided regional farmers in adopting new agricultural technologies almost completely uninhibited by governmental regulations. Compare
this with the current Gene Revolution: Biotech industries created genetically modified crops, and governmental agencies, encouraged by
scientists at a 1973 Gordon Research Conference (Wu, 2002), 4 saw
the need to regulate these GM crops to prevent or mitigate potential
health and environmental risks. Now regulations, both domestic and
international, and both directly and indirectly, are key in determining
whether or not this Gene Revolution will spread to particular regions
of the world.
As of yet, there does not appear to be a strong political motivation for genetically modified crops to succeed in the developing
world. Communism is no longer a threat, and famines, while still a
problem in parts of the world, appear to be more the result of localized weather, politics, and war conditions than a sweeping threat that
____________
4 Gordon
Research Conferences are among the most prestigious scientific conferences in the
world, bringing together top international experts on a variety of topics in biology, chemistry, and physics.
54
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
commands sustained government and public attention in industrialized countries. Instead, public concerns and national and international regulations are now the driving force behind whether GM
crops are adopted or rejected in various parts of the world, because
wider public scrutiny and the newness of the science have led to concerns about environmental and health risks of GM crops that must be
dealt with at the policy level. The battle between U.S. and European
Union regulations, which feature very different stances on the acceptance of GM crops in food and feed, has been a major determinant of
this outcome.
The regulation of GM crops worldwide has split into two major
camps, with some nations strongly advocating for GM crops (led by
the United States) and others strongly advocating against them (led
by the European Union [EU]). The regulations in these two parts of
the world, and battle between these two factions over the place of
GM crops in global food production, are shaping the regulations in
other nations worldwide. Hence, the discussion in this section focuses
on the current institutional framework by which policy decisions on
GM crops are made in the United States and the EU. 5
United States
For the purposes of regulating the technology of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), a Coordinated Framework for Regulation of
Biotechnology (51 Federal Register at 23302, 1986) was created
within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 1986.
However, its outcome was not so much to form new regulations for
GMOs as to delegate responsibility for oversight to existing agencies
under the framework of existing statutes. Importantly, the Coordinated Framework emphasized that risk assessment would be based on
the biotech product itself, not the process by which the product was
developed. This regulatory approach, which has proven to be more
permissive toward GM technologies with the direct impact of aiding
____________
5
Useful oversights of regulations in other individual nations are given in Nap et al. (2003)
and Paarlberg (2001).
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
55
the Gene Revolution in the United States, is quite different from the
European Union approach, which emphasizes the process.
Under this framework, GM crops are subject to the statutes of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); the Federal
Plant Pest Act (FPPA), now modified into the Plant Protection Act
(PPA); the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Federal
Plant Quarantine Act (FPQA); and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Hence, GM crops are regulated
by three governmental agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Table 3.2 depicts the
regulatory scheme for coordinating reviews of GM crops.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Usually, the first agency to
evaluate the safety of new transgenic crops is the USDA. The Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA has
regulatory oversight for protecting U.S. agriculture from pests and
diseases. There are two main steps to the GM crop approval process,
one for field tests and one for commercialization, under APHIS
regulation. First, registrants must obtain a permit to test the crop on
controlled fields. APHIS issues permits after it has concluded that the
GM plant in question exhibits no plant pathogenic properties; is no
more likely to become a weed than its non-engineered parental varieties; is unlikely to increase the weediness potential for any other cultivated plant or native wild species with which the organism can interTable 3.2
Regulatory Scheme for Coordinating Reviews of GM Crops
Product Class
Lead Agency
Federal Statutes
Plants
Pesticides
Food and additives
USDA/APHIS
EPA
FDA
FPPA, NEPA, PPA, FPQA
FIFRA, FFDCA, FPQA
FFDCA
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, 2000a.
56
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
breed; does not cause physical damage to processed agricultural
commodities; and is unlikely to harm other organisms, such as bees,
that are beneficial to agriculture (Carpenter, 2001). Second, to commercialize a transgenic plant, the researcher petitions APHIS for nonregulated status—a status that has aided the Gene Revolution in the
United States by its relief from regulatory restrictions from the
USDA, except in the unusual case of proven harm.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While the FDA has broad
regulatory authority to determine the safety of foods, food ingredients, and feed through the FFDCA, there is no particular statutory
requirement regarding regulation of genetically modified foods. This is
largely the result of the FDA’s 1992 policy statement (57 Federal
Register at 22991, 1992). In this policy, the FDA granted Generally
Recognized As Safe (GRAS) status to GM foods, which meant that
these foods did not need to undergo additional tests or analysis with
the agency unless there was a claim of a nutritional or health benefit.
Thus, the FDA recommends, but does not require, that biotech industries producing GM crops undergo consultation with agency scientists before marketing their products (U.S. Congress 1958, Section
402(a)(1)).6 This ruling has greatly decreased the regulatory burden
that GM crops undergo in the United States, again contributing to
the ease with which the Gene Revolution has spread.
Another action that has aided the Gene Revolution in the
United States, but has caused controversy elsewhere in the world, was
the FDA decision that GM foods do not require labeling (57 Federal
Register at 22991, 1992). The FDA currently requires labels on GM
products only if the genetic modification introduces a protein from a
food that is a known allergen (e.g., peanuts). However, because proteins produced by GMOs currently on the market are not known allergens, they need not be labeled under FDA policy. Furthermore,
the FDA states that there is no basis to distinguish GM foods as a
class separate from foods developed through traditional breeding.
____________
6 In
January 2001, however, the FDA proposed to make pre-market consultation mandatory
(66 Federal Register at 4706, 2001).
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
57
Environmental Protection Agency. By the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section
136, 1972), the EPA regulates the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides, including those produced by GMOs. To be registered under
FIFRA, a pesticide must not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment.” This statement has also facilitated the greater
spread of the Gene Revolution in the United States as compared with
the European Union because of the relatively lenient burden of proof.
That is, GM crops are registered if preliminary tests show no evidence
of unreasonable adverse effects.
As with the USDA’s process, there are several steps involved in
the EPA’s regulatory process for GM crops. The first step for registrants or researchers is to obtain EPA approval for an “experimental
use permit” for field trials. It is also possible for the registrants to apply for an exemption from the requirement for a demonstrated tolerance for their products (under FFDCA). To qualify for an exemption, the product must be shown to be nontoxic to mammals
(including humans) and to have little potential for allergenicity in
humans, based on in vitro digestibility tests, thermolability, and
amino acid sequence comparison with an allergen database. In the
final stage prior to full commercialization of a product, the EPA reviews the application for registration (FIFRA, Section 3) on the basis
of the following areas of required data:7 product characterization,
human health assessment, ecological assessment, insect resistance
management, and benefits (EPA, 2001).
European Union
The European Union has adopted a very different regulatory
approach from that of the United States to deal with GM food and
feed products coming to market. In 1990, the European Economic
Community (EEC) issued “Directive 90/220 on the Deliberate Release to the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms,” under
the agency Directorate General (DG) XI for Environmental Protec____________
7 In
most instances, some or all of these data are known or in place prior to an experimental
use permit.
58
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
tion (European Economic Community, 1990). Three key reasons for
the regulation were given in the preamble to Directive 90/220:
1. That precautionary action should be taken with regard to the
environment,
2. That protection of human health and the environment requires
that any risks from the release of GMOs to the environment
should be controlled, and
3. That any variation between the member states concerning these
rules would have an adverse effect on the operation of a single
market.
In essence, the Precautionary Principle, which states in its most
basic form that when an activity raises threats of harm to human
health or the environment precautionary measures should be taken
even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not established scientifically, became an explicit element of European regulation of
GMOs, in contrast to the U.S. regulatory philosophy, which centers
on evidence of unreasonable adverse effects. This Precautionary Principle has thus far halted the spread of the Gene Revolution in Europe,
because of the inherent difficulty of proving that there is no risk involved with GM crops.
Moreover, Directive 90/220 enables member states to adopt
stronger measures if they wish to do so. Some member states have
created their own safety plans for GMOs, going far beyond the EU
statutory basis. For example, even after the EU approved Bt corn for
registration, Luxembourg and Austria banned it, stating that Bt corn
was an environmental and commercial threat to organic agriculture.
When the European Commission (EC)8 attempted to remove these
bans, only a few member states supported this attempt; therefore, the
bans stayed in place (Levidow, 1999). To this day, the GM crop
____________
8
The European Commission acts as the EU’s executive body. The 25 members (as of this
writing) of the EC are drawn from the various EU countries, but they each swear an oath of
independence.
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
59
movement has been blocked or delayed by individual countries despite EU approval; hence, there exists a de facto moratorium
throughout Europe on the commercial growth, sale, and distribution
of GM crops.
Part of the restrictions on GM crops in Europe stems from
lawmakers’ perception of strong public opinion against foods made
from genetically modified materials and their perception that the
public has a general lack of faith in the integrity of government regulators. This perception has been a limiting factor on biotechnological
research and development. These anti-GM sentiments may be partly
the result of other unrelated food crises that occurred in Europe in
the mid-to-late 1990s, such as the outbreaks of “mad cow disease”
(bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and more recently hoof-andmouth disease (Laget and Cantley, 2001; Löfstedt and Vogel, 2001).9
Unfortunately for U.S. agriculture, the purported anti-GM sentiments in Europe have also led to a marked decrease in agricultural
exports to the EU since 1996, when Bt corn was first commercially
planted in the United States (Wu, 2002). These sentiments also indicate that it is unlikely that GM crops will prove to be revolutionary to
agriculture in Europe, due to both the lack of acceptability among its
citizens as well as lack of support from major governing bodies.
The U.S. and EU Dispute over GMOs and Its Implications for the
Gene Revolution in the Developing World
Recently, conflict between the United States and the EU regarding
trade of GM crops has taken a new turn. With EU Directive
2001/18/EC,10 which came into effect on October 17, 2002, and a
subsequent European Parliament ruling on July 7, 2003, the European Union ended its unofficial moratorium on GM crops by passing
____________
9
Recent polls, however, revealed that EU public opinion is more nuanced and less unanimous in its viewpoint on genetically modified foods than what lawmakers’ perceptions
would suggest (Marris et al., 2002).
10 Directive
2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001
on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and
Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (Official Journal, 2001, pp. 0001–0039).
60
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
new legislation regarding the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. Those rules came into force on April 18, 2004. Under the
new rules, everything from breakfast cereals to animal feed with more
than 0.9 percent genetically modified content will need to be properly labeled, which requires carefully tracing GM foods through the
entire food system.
Directive 2001/18/EC opens the way for biotech companies to
apply for approval to market their products in EU countries, but
American officials and others are doubtful that these rules will truly
facilitate market access or encourage farmers to cultivate GM crops.
Tracing and labeling GM food requires grain segregation at the
farmer and elevator level. Not only would farmers and grain elevator
operators need to keep GM and non-GM crops separated, they
would also have to prevent commingling of the two types of crops
during harvest, transport, and storage, which would likely slow the
rate of turnover in a high-volume business.
Currently, elevator operators have very thin profit margins, and
their profits depend on moving large volumes of product quickly
(Lin, Chambers, and Harwood, 2000). To use the example of genetically modified Bt corn, if all U.S. grain elevators were to adopt segregation of Bt/non-Bt corn, the total segregation costs across the
United States would be expected to exceed $400 million annually.
This amount is higher than the total estimated monetary benefits of
producing Bt corn in the United States, even taking into account potential environmental benefits from decreased pesticide use and
health benefits from mycotoxin reduction (Wu, 2004). If these cropsegregation practices were to become the worldwide norm, even industrialized-world farmers soon may lose the incentive to plant GM
crops because of high segregation costs, thus halting the spread of the
Gene Revolution even in nations where farmers can afford the GM
seed.
While these costs are unappealing to American farmers and food
processors, they are an even more serious problem in developing nations that lack the infrastructure to segregate GM from non-GM
crops in the first place. This problem came to a head in 2002, when
worldwide wariness of GM crops received a level of attention that the
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
61
United States could not ignore. For instance, although Zambia was
facing a serious famine, Zambian officials decided to turn away
26,000 tons of U.S. food aid in October 2002, saying that the shipments contained genetically modified corn that was unsafe. A key reason for refusing the aid, according to Zambia’s agriculture minister,
was that the GM corn seed could pollute the country’s seed stock and
hurt its export markets. In fact, government officials in Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi all feared that if some of the
unmilled GM corn imported as food aid was instead planted by
farmers their nations would lose their current status as “GM-free”
countries, compromising their ability in the future to export any food
and farm products to the European Union, or to receive aid from
European donors (King, 2002; Paarlberg, 2003; Wu, 2004). Hence,
the Gene Revolution has ground to a halt in these nations due to potential fears of anti-GM policies abroad.
Zambia is not alone in its reluctance to allow any form of GM
food—processed or unprocessed—through its borders. Surprisingly,
China and India have also taken an anti-GM stance, despite past developments that had indicated their acceptance of GM crops. In
2002, India approved the planting of Bt cotton for the first time, and
many expected that this movement would lead to a more widespread
acceptance of GM crops in that country. Instead, in November 2002,
India refused food-aid shipments of corn and soybeans from the
United States on the grounds that they might contain genetically
modified material (Guterl and Hardin, 2003). And China—ironically
the first nation worldwide to plant a GM crop commercially (virusresistant tobacco in 1989)—has recently developed a far more precautionary stance toward GM crops, not just regarding imports from the
United States and elsewhere, but even toward its own farmers (Guterl
and Hardin, 2003). Will the Gene Revolution, which began to take
effect in these nations, come to a halt there as well?
This question will be answered in part by how the political scene
plays out between the United States and the EU regarding trade of
GM crops and food. As of this writing, the United States, along with
Canada and Australia, has been involved in formally challenging EU
regulations toward GM foods and crops through the dispute settle-
62
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
ment body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The United
States has a reasonably solid scientific and legal case for this challenge,
because WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures state that nations may ban imports only on the condition of scientific evidence of
risk. Thus far, 81 separate scientific studies financed by the European
Commission have all shown no evidence of risk to health or the environment from GMOs (Paarlberg, 2003).
Other Crucial Differences in the Political Worlds of the Green and
Gene Revolutions
Two other important differences in the political worlds of the Green
and Gene Revolutions involve nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), public awareness, and public opinion. Unlike NGOs at the
time of the Green Revolution, today’s NGOs worldwide are an important political voice in the success or failure of agricultural revolutions. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that NGOs representing
environmental concerns gained full force (Shabecoff, 2000). At least
part of the motivation for the agri-environmental NGO movement
stemmed from the drawbacks of the Green Revolution with its myriad pesticides and fertilizers that polluted local soil, water, and air.
Some of these environmental problems stemming from post-World
War II agricultural advances were described in Rachel Carson’s seminal work Silent Spring, first published in 1962.
In the realm of the debate over the Gene Revolution in today’s
political climate, many NGOs have aligned themselves against
worldwide adoption of GM crops. Since 1998, NGOs have been instrumental in forcing the EU to impose a moratorium on new GM
crop approvals, and now they are working to prevent approvals in the
developing world. Greenpeace in particular has invested $7 million to
halt planting of GM crops, especially in developing nations that have
not yet planted GM crops (Paarlberg, 2003).
Furthermore, the public today is much more aware of what is
going on in the agricultural world and food markets compared with
the public during the days of the Green Revolution. It is not merely
that genetically modified crops are more controversial, but also new
information technologies (such as the World Wide Web) have greatly
The Gene Revolution: Genetically Modified Crops
63
increased public access to coverage of such issues. Public surveys on
the topic of genetically modified foods have helped to influence decisionmaking within the EU—in particular, surveys that revealed the
desire on the part of citizens for the labeling of GM foods. Indeed,
the public information situation is dramatically different from the
situation during the heyday of the Green Revolution, and it could
prevent the Gene Revolution from having the same impact as the
Green Revolution.
The public opinion problem may be due to the fact that certain
types of GM crops that were first introduced seemed to have no noticeable benefit to the general public. Taking Bt corn in the United
States as an example, as shown in Table 3.3, consumer surplus (i.e.,
Table 3.3
Impact of Bt Corn on U.S. Stakeholders
Stakeholder Group
Bt corn growers
Benefits of Growing
Bt Corn
Profit from increased
yield
Reduced pesticide costs
Reduced farm worker
illnesses from
pesticides
Improved corn quality
for greater marketability
Non-Bt corn growers Negative benefit (net
loss) from reduced
corn price
Consumers
Reduced corn prices
Improved
environmental
quality
Agricultural
Bt technology fee on
biotechnology inseed paid by farmers
dustry
using the seed
Total welfare gain
Total Expected
Gains to
Stakeholder
Groups
($ millions)
Impact on
Welfare
190 (–33.3 to
822)
12% increase in
revenues
–416 (0 to 960)
6.7% loss in
revenues
530 (0 to 1,200)
$1.90/ person
per year
128 (96 to 160)
Owners of
firms benefit
from
technology
fees
432 (63 to 1290)
SOURCE: Wu, 2004.
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals.
64
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
the gain to consumers) through reduced market price of corn and
corn products represents the largest total public welfare increase
among stakeholders—-about $530 million per year—a larger gain to
consumers than to Bt corn growers as a whole. On a per-person basis,
however, the consumer benefit amounts to less than $2 per year. Although consumers are price responsive and genetically modified corn
can result in overall lower average consumer prices for corn, the savings are not large enough to offset consumers’ perceived risks and
their rejection of GM crops.
The political scene of the Gene Revolution has thus far proven
to be dramatically different from that of the Green Revolution. The
world is more complicated and stakeholders are more closely integrated. Food regulations in one part of the world could have a dramatic and often unintended impact on agricultural systems in another part of the world. The acceptance and even encouragement of
new technologies that accompanied the Green Revolution are much
more scarce in the Gene Revolution. Governments as well as consumers must accept GM crop technology if a Gene Revolution is to
occur. Otherwise, there is serious doubt about how far the GM crop
movement can spread worldwide.
In the next chapter, we address certain issues that the Green
Revolution left unresolved and mistakes that the GM crop movement
should avoid.
CHAPTER FOUR
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the
Green Revolution
Genetically modified crop technology has revolutionized agriculture
in the United States, Canada, China, and Argentina. It exhibits the
potential to have much wider impact, solving many of the current
problems in agriculture worldwide. The types of GM crops that may
become available in the future could boost crop yields while enhancing the nutritional value of staple foods and eliminating the need for
inputs that could be harmful to the environment. While the environmental, health, and economic risks of GM crops should be carefully studied before full-scale adoption, the types of GM crops that
are already available have thus far largely proven to be beneficial to
agriculture and even to the environment, without evidence of adverse
health or environmental impacts.
Yet, in other than the four countries mentioned above, the GM
crop movement has had little or no impact. In those parts of the developing world where an agricultural revolution might be most welcome, the Gene Revolution has yet to be embraced. Why is this so?
For one thing, the Gene Revolution began in a different way
than the Green Revolution. GM crops were first created within the
context of the biotechnology industry to provide enhanced agricultural technologies to the industry’s primary customers—farmers in
the industrial world. These crops were not meant at the outset to be a
life-saving technology for the developing world. Although it is almost
certainly possible from a scientific and technological standpoint to
create GM crops that would be beneficial to developing-world farmers, neither producers (the biotech industry) nor consumers (devel-
65
66
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
oping-world farmers) have sufficient economic incentives for this to
happen. In fact, the enormous costs of producing each GM crop variety could prove to be a disincentive for the industry to develop “orphan GM crops” that would benefit developing-world farmers.
Additionally, even if the biotech industry were to develop GM
crops that are beneficial to farmers in the developing world, the poorest of those farmers would not be able to afford GM crop seed instead
of conventional varieties, much less purchase new GM crop seed for
every planting season, as biotech patents would require them to do.
Finally, the current political situation is not as conducive to
promoting this new agricultural movement as it was for the Green
Revolution. For all the potential that GM technology holds, there are
many challenges to be overcome if GM crops are to truly introduce a
“Gene Revolution” worldwide.
Agricultural Biotechnology Is Just One of Several Options
for the Future
Given the challenges stated above, it is important to keep in mind
that agricultural biotechnology may not be the best solution, or even
a one-shot solution, for all parts of the developing world, for three
reasons.
First, as of yet, there are few if any sustainable technological solutions for controlling pests and pathogens in subtropical subsistence
agriculture. Currently, in the poorest agricultural areas, food production is feasible only with very low inputs of semi-landrace material1 of
many different genotypes planted together to be broadly adapted to
local environments. If one genotype fails, then the others may still
succeed on a year-to-year basis, thereby achieving some level of security in the food supply (Miller, 2002). GM crops, unless they are cre____________
1
A “landrace” is a crop strain that is developed in traditional, typically poorer agricultural
settings in the following way: Farmers note which crops seem to do best in their fields under
various conditions and carefully set aside the seeds from those crops to sow the following
year. Over time, there will be several landraces that are good under certain conditions. Semilandrace simply refers to a less-careful job of selection.
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution
67
ated from many different hybrids and are modified to withstand a
broad range of environmental fluctuations, could not be expected to
consistently improve yield if planted alone in subtropical areas.
Second, there are usually alternative ways to conduct public
health or agricultural interventions, and all interventions have attendant costs. GM crops may be among the more costly interventions
given their current R&D costs as well as the costs to growers. Malnourished people may not need GM golden rice to prevent blindness,
for example, and policymakers should first take a step back to see
which choices make the most sense in terms of both long-term
sustainability and cost considerations. One possible intervention is
enhanced conventional breeding. The newest conventionally bred
crops have some immunity to common plant diseases and resistance
to pests while retaining high yields (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler,
2001). Conventional breeding, while theoretically having far greater
limitations than agricultural biotechnology, is less controversial from
a global viewpoint and may be less expensive. Hence, in the short
term, enhanced conventional breeding may be crucial to improving
agricultural yields in areas that do not want to risk losing their food
export markets due to current political tensions or government regulations, and it may be important to farmers with limited monetary
resources. Other methods of promoting sustainable agriculture may
also prove to be useful—for example, the adoption of farming techniques for greater economic return, such as agroforestry (to increase
income), reclamation of degraded land, and irrigation scheduling
(Pretty, 2003). As an alternative to introducing GM seeds now, a
possible intervention that could be helpful in the poorest nations is
the empowerment of women, who are currently the crop harvesters
(Miller, 2002). For example, they could be educated to become agricultural scientists, learning to select seeds for desirable qualities, such
as improved yield and improved quality. This could be a first step
toward agricultural independence, which could then make for a
smoother transition to agricultural commercialization.
Third, it would be overly simplistic to imagine that improved
crop varieties, whether GM or enhanced conventional crops, are all
that are needed to ensure food security. It is important to remember
68
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
that the root cause of hunger is poverty—the inability to access food
or the lack of a means to produce it (Hardin, 2003). Many factors
contribute to poverty, not just poor food production. Farmers in the
developing world also need support from certain political and social
infrastructures that can safeguard incentives to use the GM crop
technology appropriately. If the Gene Revolution is to succeed in the
developing world, many of those infrastructures must be in place to
ensure the long-term benefits from GM crop planting.
Broadening the Impact of the GM Crop Movement:
Applying Lessons from the Green Revolution
Notwithstanding its attendant challenges and alternatives, the GM
crop movement shows great promise. Like the Green Revolution before it, the GM crop movement has the potential to achieve substantial production increases in regions of need and (unlike the Green
Revolution) to reduce the need for agricultural chemicals and scarce
resources, such as water. Both the successes and failures of the Green
Revolution provide useful lessons for how to make GM crop technology a desirable and sustainable agricultural movement in the developing world.
The Green Revolution demonstrates that to create GM crops
that are truly beneficial to the developing world, plant breeders and
other scientists must be familiar with the local environment and the
planting methods of the region for which they are developing crops.
Oftentimes, agricultural conditions in developing regions are so different from those in the industrial world that it is difficult for industrial-world scientists to know how to devise appropriate technologies
for those regions. During the Green Revolution, plant scientists traveled abroad extensively, developing crop seeds that were best suited to
particular regions given their particular weather conditions, plant
pests, water availability, and planting seasons. Importantly, these
plant scientists trained others in each region to be able to carry out
the Green Revolution practices independently. The same sort of
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution
69
global effort is needed for the Gene Revolution to take hold in the
developing world.
For this global effort to take place, however, there must be a
vested interest on the part of those entities that control the Gene
Revolution technologies—those that create the technologies, namely
those in the biotech industry and those that regulate the technologies
nationally and internationally. The Green Revolution owed much of
its success to public-sector institutions that poured resources into the
effort, as well as to regulatory regimes in both the donor and recipient
nations that were permissive and even encouraged adoption of the
new agricultural technologies. Times have changed, though. R&D
for GM crops is supported by the public sector only in unusual circumstances, with the biotechnology industry mostly creating GM
crops that are beneficial to industrial-world farmers, its primary customers (and those who can afford to pay for the technology).
To complicate matters, current intellectual property regulations
that protect the biotech industry’s creations limit the flow of information on how to create GM seeds to the public sector, making it difficult to garner the public support needed to develop crops for the
poorest farmers in the world. IP rights also lead indirectly to increased GM seed costs that make GM seeds unaffordable to most developing-world farmers without significant subsidization. Collaborations between the public and the private sectors to promote the Gene
Revolution in the developing world do exist, but thus far only in isolated instances on a small scale.
Further hindering GM crop adoption worldwide is the lack of
uniform regulation of foods derived from modern biotechnology.
Unlike the permissive regulatory environment of the Green Revolution, in which agricultural advances were encouraged for both philanthropic and political reasons, decisionmakers today are largely divided
into two camps on whether GM crops should flow freely through the
food system. The European Union’s new regulations on traceability
and labeling of GM foods would require a crop-segregation system
that is almost impossible to achieve in a nation without a highly developed commercial agricultural sector.
70
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Thus, developing nations may find it in their best interest to
avoid planting GM crops altogether, despite the agricultural and nutritional benefits that GM crops might provide. In addition, many
NGOs and other organizations have expressed concerns about the
risks surrounding GM crops, and their opinions are becoming increasingly important to the public debate and decisionmaking process. These groups and the average citizen have seen little public benefit from the types of GM crops produced today, except for perhaps
slightly cheaper food (Wu, 2004).
What can we determine about the prospects for the Gene
Revolution by studying the Green Revolution’s successes and failures?
The Gene Revolution thus far resembles the Green Revolution in the
following ways: (1) It employs new science and technology to create
crop seeds that can significantly outperform the types of seeds that
preceded it; (2) the impact of the new seed technologies can be critically important to developing-world agriculture; and (3) for a variety
of reasons, these technologies have not yet reached parts of the world
where they could be most beneficial. On the other hand, the Gene
Revolution is unlike the Green Revolution in the following ways: (1)
The science and technology required to create GM crop seeds are far
more complicated than the science and technology used to create
Green Revolution agricultural advancements; (2) GM seeds are created largely through private enterprise rather than through publicsector efforts; and (3) the political climate in which agricultural science can introduce new technologies has changed dramatically.
The similarities and differences between the Green and Gene
Revolutions lead us to speculate that for the GM crop movement to
have the sort of impact that would constitute an agricultural revolution, the following goals still need to be met and their related challenges overcome:
1. Agricultural biotechnology must be made affordable to developing-world farmers. Unless this condition is met, farmers may
not see that it is in their best interest to use GM crops, despite the
significant benefits those crops could provide.
During the Green Revolution, the new HYV seeds and accompanying chemicals were more expensive than the landrace seeds that
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution
71
developing-world farmers typically had used. Therefore, loan systems
and cost-reduction programs were established regionally in which
farmers’ eventual profits from increased production could be used to
reimburse lenders. In many settings, these programs proved to be no
longer necessary several years after their successful adoption. Current
R&D costs for genetically modified seeds are even higher than the
R&D costs for the Green Revolution’s HYV seeds. At the price that
U.S. farmers currently pay, GM seeds would be unaffordable to most
developing-world farmers. Cost-reduction programs and loan systems
similar to those that were established during the Green Revolution
must also be established for the Gene Revolution; however, establishing such systems is more difficult now because of higher costs and
because the seeds are produced by the biotech industry rather than by
agricultural scientists in the public sector.
2. There is a need for larger investments in research in the
public sector. Numerous studies (e.g., Alston et al., 1995; Conway,
1998; Shoemaker et al., 2001) have shown the importance of publicsector R&D to agricultural advancements, including the advancements of the Green Revolution. During the Green Revolution, partly
because the R&D and its products were almost entirely in the public
domain, intellectual property issues were not a barrier to scientists,
for example, taking seeds from one region of the world, hybridizing
them with seeds from another region, and producing new seeds to
benefit yet another region. Today, however, the production and distribution of GM crops are largely within the domain of the biotech
industry, and IP issues are central to the development of GM seed.
While IP laws protect the rights of GM seed creators in industry,
those laws are currently an impediment to disseminating the necessary knowledge and technology to those parts of the world that need
them. Therefore, public-sector research is essential if the GM movement is to assume revolutionary proportions. Partnerships between
the public and private sectors can result in the more efficient production of GM crops that are useful to the developing world and expand
the accessibility of those crops and their associated technologies to
developing-world farmers.
72
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
3. To garner the level of public interest and support that can
sustain an agricultural revolution, agricultural development must be
regarded as being critically important from a policy perspective, in
both donor and recipient nations. Without public policy support,
cooperation among the many stakeholders in the Gene Revolution
will be stymied.
For 30 years after World War II, policymakers viewed agricultural development as being essential to world peace. For that reason,
policymakers in both the United States and in Asia and Latin America supported the Green Revolution from the start. The end of the
Cold War, however, has not brought about an increase in global stability. Whereas the conflict between East and West has declined,
there is a growing divide between rich and poor nations. Unfortunately, with the end of the Cold War, developed nations are concentrating more closely on their domestic political agendas and less on
global concerns, and as such have decreased their funding to poorer
nations. However, these reductions in aid are not in the best longterm interests of even industrialized nations. An increasingly polarized world of the rich versus the poor will result in growing political
unrest. Unless developing nations are helped to provide sufficient
food, employment, and shelter for their growing populations, the political stability of the world will be further undermined (Conway,
1998).
As population numbers continue to increase, agricultural development is more necessary than ever to eliminate malnutrition and
prevent famine, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. GM crops are seen
as a means for addressing those problems. However, policymakers
worldwide are far from being a combined force on this issue; the
driving force behind improved agriculture is less unified than it was
during the Green Revolution. The question of who should assume
the task of re-establishing the importance of agricultural development
among policymakers is an issue for further inquiry.
4. Policymakers in the developing world must set regulatory
standards that take into consideration the risks as well as the benefits of foods derived from GM crops. This goal is crucial to the cooperation of the many stakeholders that are affected by GM crops
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution
73
and also for the sustainability of the GM crop movement in the foreseeable future. A generation ago, the regulatory environment surrounding the Green Revolution was extremely permissive. Scientists
could move freely among nations to help breed and plant HYV crops,
and there was no stigma attached to eating foods developed from
these crops. Today, however, the regulatory world is divided between
those nations that permit GM crops to move freely through their
food system (e.g., the United States, Canada, China, and Argentina)
and those (primarily the EU) that have strict regulations regarding
GM crops in their food systems. There are many possible reasons for
the disparity in regulations—differing consumer attitudes, trade issues, and differences in regulatory philosophy among them.
The discord regarding GM crop regulations is currently playing
itself out (as of this writing) in a case before the WTO to determine
whether the EU’s rules on GM foods constitute an illegal trade barrier. In the meantime, policymakers in certain African nations have
decided that they cannot afford to permit GM crop planting, even if
it is beneficial to their growers and consumers, because they are wary
of losing financial aid from the EU if they are seen as taking a proGM crop stance. Without regulations that explicitly take into account potential benefits to both farmers and consumers, those nations
that might stand to benefit most from GM crops may be discouraged
from allowing them to be planted.
At the same time, policymakers worldwide must ensure that risk
assessments of GM crops are conducted to address the specific concerns of their regions. A risk assessment of transgene outflow in the
United States, for example, is unlikely to be relevant to ecological
concerns in Mexico or Africa. In assessing risks, policymakers in developing nations must consider, among other factors, the types of native and agricultural plants that may be affected by the presence of
GM crops, traditional farming practices, and the desired traits of GM
crops that may be planted in their regions in the near term and long
term.
74
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Implications for Relevant Stakeholders
What do these challenges mean for the various stakeholders that are
or should be involved in solving the problems surrounding current
and future agricultural needs worldwide? We offer recommendations
for four stakeholder groups: the U.S. government and other national
governments worldwide, public institutions, private companies, and
NGOs.
First, national governments worldwide should realize that so
long as there is any threat of widespread hunger or malnutrition, the
threat of political instability and insecurity (partly caused by lack of
food security) is larger. Indeed, problems of hunger and malnutrition
still exist, most especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and the benefits of
the Green Revolution in other parts of the developing world are
slowing. Thus, governments should pay closer attention and lend
greater support to agriculture and food policies regarding developing
nations in need.
Public institutions—foundations, agricultural departments in
universities, and other national and international agricultural research
organizations—should have this same sort of realization when planning their agendas and areas of focus. In addition to the national security issues, they must recognize the problem of continuing hunger
and malnutrition as an important public welfare problem.
From a technological standpoint, private companies are in a position of power because they possess the scientific knowledge and capabilities to produce GM crop seeds that could have significant benefit worldwide. However, unless companies use that power for global
good, their products (i.e., GM crop seeds) may continue to be stigmatized in many parts of the world, with serious market implications.
Therefore, private companies should use their technological knowhow to focus on the needs of developing-world farmers and should
partner with public institutions to benefit from a mutual sharing of
resources.
Nongovernmental organizations should strive to present morebalanced perspectives on the GM crop issue, keeping in mind their
increased level of influence (and corresponding responsibility) in re-
Lessons for the Gene Revolution from the Green Revolution
75
cent years regarding policy decisions on adoption of new technologies. NGOs that support the GM crop movement should make it
clear that not all the potential risks of agricultural biotechnology have
been researched. NGOs that are against GM crops should not mislead the public about any risks that have already been proven to be
insignificant, nor decline to spread the message about potential benefits from GM crops. All NGOs should help to communicate the message that the risks associated with planting certain types of GM crops
in specific locales worldwide should be carefully considered.
The challenges discussed in this chapter are interrelated. Revised
regulations on genetically modified crops must accompany widespread collective policy efforts to revitalize agricultural development.
And before developing-world farmers and consumers can benefit
from GM crops or any other type of enhanced crop breeding, the
technologies must be affordable and farmers must understand how to
use them. The GM crop movement must overcome an intertwined
collection of challenges before it can have an impact beyond those
regions of the world that already produce excesses of food. If the GM
crop movement can overcome these challenges, while proving itself to
be acceptably free of adverse health and environmental impacts, it has
the potential to provide benefits to farmers and consumers around
the globe in previously inconceivable ways, while mitigating the need
to use potentially harmful chemicals or scarce water supplies for agriculture. It can then, indeed, become a true “Gene Revolution.”
Bibliography
51 Federal Register at 23302, 1986.
57 Federal Register at 22991, 1992.
66 Federal Register at 4706, 2001.
Alston, Julian M., George W. Norton, and Philip G. Pardey, Science Under
Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and
Priority Setting, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Andow, D. A., and D. N. Alstad, “F2 Screen for Rare Resistant Alleles,”
Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 91, 1998, pp. 572–578.
Baum, Warren C., Partners Against Hunger: The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C.: World Bank,
1986.
Borlaug, Norman, “The Green Revolution: Its Origins and Contributions
to World Agriculture,” speech given at the School of Agriculture, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Ind., February 7, 2003.
Boserup, Ester, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of
Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure, Chicago: Aldine, 1965.
Brea, Jorge, “Population Dynamics in Latin America,” Population Bulletin,
Vol. 58, No. 1, Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 2003.
Byrne, Pat, Sarah Ward, Judy Harrington, and Lucy Fuller, “Transgenic
Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide,” Department of Soil and
Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, 2004 (available at http://
www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops as of April
2004).
77
78
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Carpenter, Janet, Case Studies in Benefits and Risks of Agricultural
Biotechnology: Roundup Ready Soybeans and Bt Field Corn, Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy Report, 2001.
Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1962 (Mariner Books edition, 2002).
Cayford, Jerry, “Breeding Sanity into the GM Food Debate,” Issues in
Science and Technology, Winter 2004, pp. 49–56.
Chandler, Robert E., A History of IRRI, Metro Manila, Philippines:
International Rice Research Institute, 1982.
Cleaver, Harry, “The Contradictions of the Green Revolution,” American
Economic Review, Vol. 62, Nos. 1 and 2, 1972, pp. 177–186.
Conway, Gordon, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st
Century, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Conway, Gordon, “Biotechnology and Hunger,” remarks addressed to
Senate about Science at the House of Lords, London, UK, May 8, 2003.
Dowd, Patrick F., “Biotic and Abiotic Factors Limiting Efficacy of Bt Corn
in Indirectly Reducing Mycotoxin Levels in Commercial Fields,” Journal
of Economic Entomology, Vol. 94, No. 5, 2001, pp. 1067–1074.
Echols, Marsha, “Caught in the Middle? The Impact of the Biotechnology
Debate on Africa and Other Developing Countries,” Proceedings of Ceres
Roundtable: Breaking the EU/U.S. Deadlock on Foods Derived from
Modern Biotechnology: A Global Perspective, Center for Food and
Nutrition Policy, Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech, 2002.
European Economic Community, “Council Directive 90/220 on the Deliberate Release to the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms,” Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 117, No. 15,
May 8, 1990.
Farmer, B. H., “Perspectives on the Green Revolution in South Asia,”
Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1986, pp. 175–199.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,
1972).
Gould, F., A. Anderson, D. Summerford, D. Heckel, J. Lopez, S. Micinski,
R. Leonard, and M. Laster, “Initial Frequency of Alleles for Resistance to
Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins in Field Populations of Heliothis
Bibliography
79
virescens,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, 1997,
pp. 3519–3523.
Griliches, Zvi, "Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of
Technological Change," Econometrica, Vol. 25, 1957, pp. 501–522.
Guterl, Fred, and Lowell S. Hardin, “The Fear of Food,” Newsweek
International, January 27, 2003.
Hammond, B., K. Campbell, C. Pilcher, A. Robinson, D. Melcion, B.
Cahagnier, J. Richard, J. Sequeira, J. Cea, F. Tatli, R. Grogna, A. Pietri,
G. Piva, and L. Rice, “Reduction of fumonisin mycotoxins in Bt Corn,”
The Toxicologist, Vol. 72, 2003, p. S-1.
Hardin, Lowell, Purdue University, personal communications, December
2003.
Harriss, John, “The Green Revolution in North Arcot: Economic Trends,
Household Mobility, and the Politics of an ‘Awkward Class,’” in Peter B.
R. Hazell and C. Ramasamy, The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The
Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, Baltimore, Md.:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Hazell, Peter B. R., and C. Ramasamy, The Green Revolution Reconsidered:
The Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, Baltimore,
Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as
Causes of Acute Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1991,
pp. 76–116.
James, Clive, Global Statutes of Commercialized Transgenic Crops, Ithaca,
N.Y.: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), ISAAA Briefs No. 30, 2003.
James, Clive, Progressing Public-Private Sector Partnerships in International
Agricultural Research and Development, Ithaca, N.Y.: ISAAA, ISAAA
Briefs No. 4, 1997.
Khush, Gurdev S., “Green Revolution: the Way Forward,” Nature Reviews:
Genetics, Vol. 2, 2001, pp. 815–821.
Kilman, Scott, and Roger Thurow, “Africa Could Feed Itself but Many
Ask: Should It?” Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2002, p. 1.
King, Neil, “U.S. Ponders Next Course in EU Biotech-Food Fight,”
Politics and Policy, Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2002.
80
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Laget, Patrice, and Mark Cantley, “European Responses to Biotechnology:
Research, Regulation, and Dialogue,” Issues in Science and Technology,
Vol. 17, No. 4, 2001, pp. 37–42.
Levidow, Les, “Regulating Bt Maize in the United States and Europe: A
Scientific-Cultural Comparison,” Environment, Vol. 41, No. 10, 1999,
pp. 10–22.
Lin, W., W. Chambers, and J. Harwood, Biotechnology: U.S. Grain
Handlers Look Ahead, Washington, D.C.: Economic Research
Service–USDA, Agricultural Outlook AGO-270, 2000, pp. 29–34.
Lipton, Michael, “Growing Mountain, Shrinking Mouse? Indian Poverty
and British Bilateral Aid,” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1996,
pp. 481–522.
Lipton, Michael, and Richard Longhurst, New Seeds and Poor People,
London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Löfstedt, Ragnar E., and David Vogel, “The Changing Character of
Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States,” Risk
Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2001, pp. 399–405.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon, Public Perceptions of
Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe, Final Report of the PABE Research
Project, Commission of European Communities, FAIR CT98-3844
(DG12-SSMI), 2002 (available at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/
ieppp/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.pdf as of May 2004).
Miller, J. David, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont., personal
communications, September 24, 2002, and October 14, 2002.
Munkvold, Gary P., and Richard L. Hellmich, “Comparison of Fumonisin
Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids,” Plant Disease, Vol. 83, No. 2, 1999, pp. 130–138.
Nap, Jan-Peter, Peter L. J. Metz, Marga Escaler, and Anthony J. Conner,
“The Release of Genetically Modified Crops into the Environment:
Overview of Current Status and Regulations,” The Plant Journal, Vol.
33, 2003, pp. 1–18.
National Academy of Sciences, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants:
Science and Regulation, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
2000a.
Bibliography
81
National Academy of Sciences, Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000b.
Nelson, G. C., J. Babinard, and T. Josling, “The Domestic and Regional
Regulatory Environment,” in Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture, G. C. Nelson, ed., San Diego: Academic Press, 2001.
Official Journal, L 106, April, 17, 2001.
Orme, John, “The Utility of Force in a World of Scarcity,” International
Security, Vol. 22, No. 3, Winter 1997–1998, pp. 138–167.
Paarlberg, Robert, The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in
Developing Countries, Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2001.
Paarlberg, Robert, “African Famine, Made in Europe,” op-ed column, Wall
Street Journal, August 23, 2002.
Paarlberg, Robert, “Reinvigorating Genetically Modified Crops,” Issues in
Science and Technology, Spring 2003.
Perkins, John H., Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and
the Cold War, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Pingali, Prabhu L., and Paul W. Heisey, “Cereal Crop Productivity in Developing Countries: Past Trends and Future Prospects,” in Agricultural
Science Policy, Julian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey, and Michael J. Taylor,
eds., Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, and M. Jaramillo, “The Impact of Technological
Change in Rice Production on Food Consumption and Nutrition,” in
Peter B. R. Hazell and C. Ramasamy, The Green Revolution Reconsidered:
The Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, Baltimore,
Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, and Ebbe Schioler, Seeds of Contention, Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Pretty, Jules, “Agroecology in Developing Countries: The Promise of a
Sustainable Harvest,” Environment, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2003, pp. 8–20.
Qaim, Matin, and David Zilberman, “Yield Effects of Genetically Modified
Crops in Developing Countries,” Science, Vol. 299, 2003, pp. 900–902.
Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd
edition, 1821 (in print, New York: George Olms Publishers, 1977).
82
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Ruttan, Vernon, “Foreword to Cornell Paperbacks Edition,” in G. Conway,
The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century, Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Sachs, Jeffrey, “Geography and Economic Transition,” working paper,
Harvard Institute for International Development, November 1997
(available at http://www2.cid.harvard.edu/hiidpapers/geotrans.pdf as of
April 2004).
Schaafsma, A. W., D. C. Hooker, T. S. Baute, and L. Illincic-Tamburic,
“Effect of Bt-Corn Hybrids on Deoxynivalenol Content in Grain at
Harvest,” Plant Disease, Vol. 86, No. 10, 2002, pp. 1123–1126,
Sears, Mark K., Richard L. Hellmich, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Karen S.
Oberhauser, John M. Pleasants, Heather R. Mattila, Blair D. Siegfried,
and Galen P. Dively, “Impact of Bt Corn Pollen on Monarch Butterfly
Populations: A Risk Assessment,” PNAS Online, September 14, 2001
(available at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.211329998 as of April
2004).
Serageldin, Ismail, “Foreword to UK Edition,” in G. Conway, The Doubly
Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1998.
Shabecoff, Philip, Earth Rising: American Environmentalism in the 21st
Century, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000.
Shoemaker, Robbin, Joy Harwood, Kelly Day-Rubenstein, Terri Dunahay,
Paul Heisey, Linwood Hoffman, Cassandra Klotz-Ingram, William Lin,
Lorraine Mitchell, William McBride, and Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo,
“Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology,” ERS Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 762, Washington, D.C.: Economic Research
Service, March 2001.
Toenniessen, Gary H., “Vitamin A Deficiency and Golden Rice: The Role
of the Rockefeller Foundation,” New York: The Rockefeller Foundation,
November 14, 2000 (available at http://www.rockfound.org/display.
asp?context=1&Collection=4&DocID=80&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1
as of April 2004).
Truman, Harry S., “Inaugural Address,” January 20, 1949, from the Page
By Page Books website (http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Harry_S_
Truman/Inaugural_Address/Inaugural_Address_p1.html).
Bibliography
83
United Nations Children’s Fund, The State of the World’s Children 1998,
New York: Oxford University Press for UNICEF, 1998.
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report,
1994, New York: UNDP, 1994.
United Nations Population Division, “World Population Prospects, The
2002 Revision Population Database,” 2002 (available at http://esa.un.
org/unpp as of April 2004).
U.S. Congress 1958, Section 402(a)(1).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, “A Historical Overview of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Wildlife Research Center’s International Research
Programs,” n.d. (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/hx/
international.html as of April 2004).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,
Historical Track Records, May 2001 (available at http://www.usda.gov/
nass/pubs/trackrec/trackrec2001.pdf as of April 2004).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,
“Prospective Plantings,” Washington, D.C.: USDA, March 31, 2003
(available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bbp/
pspl0303.pdf as of April 2004).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides Registration Action
Document: Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants, Environmental Protection Agency, 2001 (available at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm as of May 2004).
Woodward, John, Biometrics Management Office, personal communication, May 2003.
Wu, Felicia, “Tools for Regulatory Decisions Concerning Genetically
Modified Corn,” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pa., 2002.
Wu, Felicia, “Explaining Public Resistance to Genetically Modified Corn:
An Analysis of the Benefits and Risks,” Risk Analysis, Best Paper Issue,
Vol. 24, No. 3, 2004, pp. 717–728.
Wu, Felicia, J. David Miller, and Elizabeth A. Casman, “The Economic
Impact of Bt Corn Resulting from Mycotoxin Reduction,” Journal of
Toxicology Toxin Reviews, forthcoming.
84
The Future of Genetically Modified Crops
Zhang, Hong-Xia, and Eduardo Blumwald, “Transgenic Salt-Tolerant
Tomato Plants Accumulate Aalt in Foliage but Not in Fruit,” Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 19, No. 8, 2001, pp. 765–768.